Monday, November 30, 2009


Ain't Science Wonderful!
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Charlton Griffin has been passing along links to "Climategate," as some call it. That's the impact of the appearance of emails from a major climate research center in England indicating that climate researchers were trying to silence opposition to "global warming" and perhaps fudging data used by policymakers. The situation has been evolving so rapidly that I'll pass over links Charlton sent a few days ago to feature this article from The Times (London). It deals with the fact that the research unit destroyed primary climate data, saving only data that had been processed in one form or another. So, unless other sites have copies of the original data, conscientious scientists cannot perform the necessary task of checking the "findings" of the East Anglia organization. I do not know whether or not "global warming" is real, but I've had strong doubts for years that we've departed from normal patterns of temperature swings. Moreover, the business about the warming being "settled science" has driven me to long rants (as my long-suffering wife can tell you) about the inherently tentative nature of scientific findings. I suppose there are others who are more into this and have documentation available, but for years there has been a consistent effort by the pro-warming crowd that dissenters were the equivalent of "flat-earthers" and attention to them should not be paid. This is not science. It is a religion trying to purge heretics. (Hmm. How many stake-burnings will it take to raise world temperatures 0.1 degrees Centigrade?) The fact is, government and academic climate researchers need grants and glory, and the best way to keep all that flowing is to juice up the panic levels. They're human after all. And so is Al Gore: Nobelist, fat and happy, profligate consumer of energy (think huge house, huge houseboat and jet trips everywhere to soak up the cash and adulation of the pious). I'm pleased the sordid truth about the warming movement is finally coming out. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 30, 2009 | perma-link | (33) comments

Saturday, November 28, 2009


Period-Quote or Quote-Period?
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Talk about gut-wrenching issues -- here's one that has vexed me off and on for years: When quoting, what comes last -- the period or the quotation mark? Via the indispensible Instapundit comes this link to a post on law professor Eugene Volokh's blog. As the post indicates, American convention has it that commas and periods can be inserted in a quotation immediately before the close-quote. British style is that the final quotation mark is placed at the end of the quoted passage; if the passage is not a complete sentence, then a period (if needed) is placed after the quotation mark. To me, the British convention seems more logical and natural, which means that I'm always gritting my teeth when having to conform to American usage. Volokh, as good lawyer is wont to do, goes with precedent as you can see if you link to the post. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 28, 2009 | perma-link | (12) comments

Friday, November 27, 2009


Ideological Inconsistencies
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Before moving on to topics less explicitly political, here's Zdeno on ideological inconsistency. * * * * * Earlier, I wondered about the origin for our political and ideological beliefs. Today I’d like to explore the topic of ideology and where it comes from a bit more. Today’s question is: What opinions do you hold that are exceptional for a person of your general ideological leanings? Are you a tax-hating, hippie-stomping gun nut - who happens to be rabidly pro-choice? Do you worship at the temple of Obama - but think every last homosexual should be shot behind a barn? What are the political beliefs that you would reveal in a conversation with like-minded individuals if your goal was shock and awe? For extra credit, take a stab at explaining why it is your views on those questions are out of line with the rest of your thinking. I’ll kick things off: I would describe myself as equal parts Conservative and Libertarian. While wearing my “Conservative” hat, I hold wacky, exceptional opinions such as support for gay rights and drug legalization. If I want to piss off my Libertarian friends I can talk about my preference for effective law enforcement over civil liberties, ask why eminent domain is such a big deal, and wonder aloud that we might want to think twice before adopting completely open borders. I can’t think of any specific policies in which my thinking deviates from the Libertarian-Conservative party line, but I suspect my values could be described as vaguely Progressive. Also, my persona and lifestyle are very much SWPLish. So, Blowhards: What’s your exceptional belief? Why are your feelings different on that one (or two, or three) question(s)? Why are the rest of your ideological brethren off base here and here alone? * * * * * Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 27, 2009 | perma-link | (43) comments

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


"Themed" Casinos and Entropy
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Yesterday I zipped up and down much of the Las Vegas strip; photos will appear here eventually. I noticed something. And that reinforced some impressions I was forming my last visit or two. You see, Las Vegas experienced a transformation starting around 15 or 20 years ago. Casino owners decided, perhaps because of competition for the gambling dollar from Atlantic City, Indian reservation casinos and elsewhere, to add casinos emphasizing themes and in many cases large shopping areas. Currently active themes in the heart of the Strip include Venice, the Italian lake country, King Arthur's court, ancient Egypt, New York City, Caribbean pirate islands, China, a desert oasis and Paris. Well on the way to phase-out are Aladdin's Middle East and Hollywood. (The MGM Grand dropped some of its Hollywood-themed decor. On the other hand, the Aladdin has been pretty much transformed into its new, Planet Hollywood guise.) Did I just mention "phase-out?" What I've been noticing are signs that that theme-purity is starting to diminish in the strongly-themed casinos -- places where even the shops originally tried to conform to the overall scheme. The majority of themed casinos wear their themes lightly, embodying them in the general decor, but not extending to most of the shops and restaurants. A case in point is the Paris. It has a Parisian-style shopping street where all (or nearly all) shops and restaurants were -- Parisian. Yesterday I noticed that one shop site had been taken over by (if memory serves) a Shooz shoe store. And there was a new restaurant that, at a glance, didn't seem particularly French. The Luxor casino began an image remake a few years ago. Its architecture (a hollow pyramid) is impossible to change, but the ground floor details are changing from ancient Egypt to Los Angles show-biz. The Luxor's change was by top management decision. The Paris' seeming shift is probably fed by the need to rent retail space, a need that will likely be enhanced by the current hard economic times. Or, as the title of this post suggests, it's possible that entropy itself kicks in where highly structured, low-entropic conditions exist. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 25, 2009 | perma-link | (3) comments

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


Anyone Wanna Repeal the 19th Amendment?
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- A Faithful Reader passed along the following quote: I would venture to say women can’t be true conservatives because conservatism is a male thing. One will find time and again, for example, from talking to them, hearing them on TV, reading what they write, and watching how they vote, that women can’t conceive of the things men know as countries, nation-states, and so on. They just cannot perceive their existence, and therefore of course can’t see what steps must be taken to protect and preserve such entities. Another problem is they are too socially liberal as a natural, inborn quality (or rather, defect). As Chamfort said, “elles possèdent une case de moins dans le cerveau et une fibre de plus dans le coeur”—they have a compartment less in the brain and a fiber more in the heart (than men). Women, incidentally, look at political liberalism in a man as irresistibly sexually attractive and conservatism as absolutely sexually repulsive. (Yes, yes, it goes without saying there are tons of exceptions, and happy wives with children tend far less to fall in this category than other women.) Women see Marxist revolutionaries like Ché Guévara as Christ-like figures whom they’d love to sleep with, and one can be sure the majority of college-age young men who go around sporting Ché T-shirts are after the sexual opportunities they hope might “rub off onto them,” more than the ideology. (I said the majority, not all. Obviously, there’s no lack of true hard-core Marxists running around.) Roger Daltrey if I’m not mistaken, John Bon Jovi, and many other rock-and-roll stars said they first ventured into R-n-R bands primarily in order to get girls and sex, not primarily in order to sing or play music. Well, there’s no doubt whatsoever but that many men who are in reality fundamentally apolitical go into left-liberal politics for the same reason: women and sex will be showered upon them. They are not disappointed: those of them who aren’t completely physically repulsive will be surrounded by throngs of groupies like a rock star. Anyone who wants to find one possible plausible explanation for the way the world seems to be going down the left-liberal tubes must have a frank look at something rarely brought up in this regard: the nation-killing extension of the franchise to women. (Switzerland held out until 1972, then caved. Worst mistake they ever made.) It is part of a comment to this book review. Brave man, that commenter. I wonder if he's married. Despite a whiff of misinterpretation, dashes of exaggeration, etc., there is the nugget of truth that women voters tend to be more swayed by appeals to sympathy and other varieties of that area of emotion than men. (Guys tend to heat up over appeals such as "To the barricades!" or "Kill the bastards!!" and even "What a stupid, expensive idea!") At least that's how public opinion polling shows it -- the "compassionate" left agenda favored by higher percentages... posted by Donald at November 24, 2009 | perma-link | (51) comments

Monday, November 23, 2009


Anonymous Internet Rewards
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Zdeno is back with some musing regarding the Internet's Anonymous Side. * * * * * If there’s one thing the internet has taught us, it’s that people have a primal, unselfish desire to improve the world. Obviously this unselfish desire has its roots in some sort of ruthlessly fitness-maximizing ultimate cause – but the phenotype is clear. Hundreds, thousands, and someday millions of people are investing their time and money in making the world a better place, without any hope or desire for reward or recognition in the physical world. Most of my favourite bloggers, for example, are anonymous. Virtually no one charges for content on the internet, and only a minority are so bold as to set out a tip jar. Commenters are even less rewarded, since at least anonymous bloggers achieve some degree of fame and social status among their e-peers. And yet so many blog posts are followed with comments that show at least as much thought and writing quality as the original article. Many of them aren’t even signed by the author. I would estimate that I spend a good two hours per day reading, writing and commenting on internet content, with absolutely no tangible, material benefit to my life at all. Many, perhaps most, of the people reading this can make a similar claim. Today’s question: What motivates us? Why do we spend so many of the precious hours in our finite lives entertaining and educating others who we will likely never meet? * * * * * Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 23, 2009 | perma-link | (23) comments

Saturday, November 21, 2009


Driving Around as Entertainment
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Once upon a time. Ages ago. Before television. Before movies on videotape and DVD. Before iPhones, Twitter and texting. Before the Internet. And before gasoline prices touched $4 per gallon (very roughly 70 Euro cents per liter -- yes, that's cheap by European standards). Before ... where was I? Oh yeah. Back when I was a kid. One thing my family and many others did for entertainment was the Sunday Drive. This was in the days when a four-lane highway outside cities was a big deal in the distant, forested, rain-soaked Pacific Northwest. This meant that trips were fairly short; not many miles because my father didn't like driving a lot in a day and the two-lane roads were slow. Short time-wise because we seldom would stop for a meal, normally accomplishing the trip between lunchtime and dinner. Years later, when I was in graduate school, I'd sometimes entertain myself on weekends by day tripping. From Philadelphia I sometimes ranged as far as New Haven and Washington, DC. Other drives were shorter: through the Amish country or up to Princeton. Today I still do recreational driving. For example, Nancy likes going to the Skagit Valley area to look at tulips in the spring and to browse the shops in the quaint town of La Conner. Actually, I'm pretty sure a lot of people still take recreational drives, this despite fuel prices and nagging from the Green crowd. It's just that you don't hear about it as much with all the other weekend activies available these days. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 21, 2009 | perma-link | (10) comments

Blogging Notes
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- * I'm entering a period of heavy travel, but will be packing my trusty [knocks on wood] macBook and expect to blog at not too much of a reduced pace. It's Las Vegas 22-29 November for our annual visit there. From what I read, the town has been hit pretty hard by the recession. But it might be hard to tell by looking; a ten percent drop (for instance) in crowds isn't easy to distinguish, but closed shops are unambiguous. How many Gucci stores does any one city need? Or can support? Then 3-9 December we go to Honolulu, taking advantage of a recession-inspired travel deal. This trip, for the first time, I get to drive and so will be able to explore Oahu beyond the Honolulu - Pearl Harbor areas I'm slightly familiar with. * I'm still looking for 2Blowhards article contributions from readers. Don't be shy about contacting me and presenting your topic ideas. Longer-term, I'll need to recruit one or two full-time Blowhards. That's a major step, and I don't want to rush things. But if you are interested in that prospect, the key is to submit consistently interesting work to prove your abilities and tenacity. I don't rule out interests that overlap mine, but the health of the blog demands greater diversity in subject matter than I can provide. Needed topics are movies, literature, music, theater, sculpture and other arts I have only superficial knowledge of. Later, Donald UPDATE: Got to thinking. Can some readers come up with articles about Steampunk? I don't read enough of that genre to do the subject justice.... posted by Donald at November 21, 2009 | perma-link | (5) comments

Friday, November 20, 2009


Intelligent Presidents
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Conventional wisdom holds that, for real-world dealings, it's better for a leader/manager to be pretty smart, but not a genius. Geniuses belonging in Physics departments at universities, presumably. Coming to this practical point of view can take a while for many folks up there in the top two or three percent of the IQ curve. After all, smart school age kids often receive praise from parents, kin and teachers for being bright. Although my IQ is south of 140 (based on Army testing), I was bright enough to get some of that kind of praise. It was almost as if intelligence was an accomplishment rather than an attribute. And it took some life-experience for me to fully appreciate the difference. Unfortunately, there are people who, regardless of their own life-experience, seem to think that raw intelligence somehow is a great thing for leaders to possess -- something transcending other characteristics. I suppose you have encountered news articles, opinion columns, remarks on TV show, etc. where President X is dismissed as a dummy and President Y shines by the light of his own genius. I recently came across this post on the Commentary web site by John Steele Gordon in which he muses about presidential smarts. A long-ish excerpt is below. (For his take on the current president, Read The Whole Thing.) But being “supersmart” is not only no help; it is, I think, often a hindrance. Six future presidents were elected to Phi Beta Kappa as college undergraduates: John Quincy Adams, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Of those six, only Roosevelt could be considered a great president. Three of them, Adams, Taft, and Bush, were defeated for re-election, and Arthur couldn’t even get nominated for a second term. (His presidential reputation has been improving of late, however.) And intellectuals, of course, are all too capable of thinking themselves into disaster. Remember George Orwell’s famous crack about “an idea so stupid only an intellectual could have conceived it.” One might think that engineers, trained to deal with real-world forces, might make better presidents. But the only two engineers to reach the White House were Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both terrible presidents. So what makes for successful presidencies? It might be fruitful to compare what the two greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, had in common. Neither were intellectuals (Roosevelt hardly ever read a book as an adult), but both were very “savvy,” not the same thing as smart. Both were master politicians, able to assemble and maintain coalitions. Both had immense charm. Both were first-class orators. Both had a great sense of humor and loved to tell jokes. Both were comfortable in their own skins and not given to introspection. Both had an abundance of self-confidence but no trace of arrogance. In both, the inner man was inaccessible, and no one felt he really knew what made either man tick. And... posted by Donald at November 20, 2009 | perma-link | (23) comments

Thursday, November 19, 2009


Zdeno on Social Clubs
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- I'm eons away from the singles scene, but what Zdeno writes about below seems oddly familiar. * * * * * I don’t spend quite as much time in clubs as I used to, but I’m no stranger to loud music, overpriced drinks, and nubile young women drinking and rationalizing their way into sexual escapades they will later claim to regret. Today, let's talk about this strange world, the club scene. The primary function of a club is to act as a focal point for young men and women to converge and meet each other, whether for a one-night stand, phone number exchange, or some variant thereof. Yes, some people go to clubs to dance and see friends, but some people also go to the zoo to take a walk with their family, or to a movie because they like $10 popcorn. The exceptions do not disprove the general rule. Using the cynical, reductionist perspective drilled into me by extensive economic training, I view the chaotic mating dance of humans in clubs not as a mysteriously romantic exercise in locating serendipity, but as a meat market of assortative mating. The prime activity going on in the club is the display and ascertainment of mate value. In a few words, showing off how attractive you are, and judging how attractive another person is. In one word: Signaling. Everyone has a set of traits that make them attractive, or not, to members of the opposite sex – beauty, confidence, social acumen, wit, status, money, etc. Humans, in their L’il Wayne-soundtracked mating dance, show off the extent to which they possess these traits as best they can. We should expect clubs, profit-seeking businesses that they are, to maximize their mate-matching efficacy. But oddly, this is not what we see them doing. In fact, they seem consciously designed to minimize the ability of men and women to exchange information about each others' attractiveness. Darkness and flashing lights prevent accurate assessments of physical beauty. Loud music prevents anything more than the most rudimentary of conversations. All of it is masked in a haze of liquor that increases the noise-to-signal ratio all around. Why is that? I have my theory, which I had originally planned to include in the body of this post. But I think I’ll hold off on it and let everyone else take a crack at the question: Why do clubs appear as if they are designed to be as bad as possible at accomplishing their obvious goal? * * * * * Actually, the only unfamiliar thing is the word "club" -- something Canadian? Or am I out of it, as usual. In my day there were dance halls and there were singles bars, but they hadn't quite merged as completely as Zdeno indicates. Whatever they were called, I never really liked them and tended to meet women elsewhere. And you? Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 19, 2009 | perma-link | (28) comments

Wednesday, November 18, 2009


On Becoming a Road Warrior
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- I sort of realized it at the time, but now I know for certain that I was a pretty fortunate commuter during most of my working life. That's because I'm now on the road the better part of three hours a day on those days I commute to Olympia from Seattle on notoriously crowded Interstate 5. Door-to-parking-garage distance is about 65 miles, and I avoid absolute peak traffic hours on the return commute simply because I don't reach Tacoma until after 5:30 and Seattle until nearly 6:30. Plus, going north-south and then south-north, I'm mostly going against the main flow (though the counter-stream can be pretty heavy in spots too). For many years I either worked at home or else had a five-mile small-city commute to work, so you probably can understand how spoiled I was. Still, I can be something of a stoic, and do what I have to do -- even though my work days chew up 11-12 hours and leave me pretty well shot once I get home. It helps that I enjoy driving except when there are significant delays. There are no practical alternatives to my long commute. Car pools, buses and trains aren't in my picture. Moreover, were these conveniently available, time traveling would not be any less. This brings to mind an acquaintance from grad school days, a Ph.D. physicist who morphed into a Wall Street "quant." He lived in Yardley, Pennsylvania, caught a train someplace near Trenton, rode the thing to (I'm guessing) Newark and switched to the PATH train to get to Wall Street. Or he might have gone from Trenton to Pennsylvania Station and then caught a subway for downtown. I used to think his commute was ghastly, and it still might be worse than mine even though he didn't have to drive those trains. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 18, 2009 | perma-link | (8) comments

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


Satisfying Painting at Pebble Beach
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- A little while ago I wrote about what I called "satisfying paintings" -- works that were nicely done and that are a pleasure to view. And a few years ago I wrote about Pebble Beach and posted the following photo of the lounge at The Lodge at Pebble Beach (which overlooks the famous 18th hole). Lounge, The Lodge at Pebble Beach Note the painting on the back wall. It's one of several in the Lodge. The artist is Jerry Van Megert (b. 1938). I haven't found much about him other than he was originally from Oregon and does portraits as well as California coastal scenes such as those on display at Pebble Beach. Here is a slightly cropped photo of the painting noted above. The original is quite large, but my photo for once conveys a pretty good sense of it. I'd like to show more works by Van Megert, but information about him on the Web is sparse indeed, if my Google and Bing searches are any guide. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 17, 2009 | perma-link | (5) comments

Monday, November 16, 2009


Neiman's Interior Space
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- My gut reaction is that modernist architecture is often ill at ease with grand spaces. Sure, it's easy to whip out t-square, triangle or architectural design software and simply specify a space for contractors and workers to actualize. The tricky bit, so far as modernists go, is humanizing such spaces. That requires making use of (ugh!!) decorative elements. One solution is to combine modernism with explicitly classical details. Consider the restaurant and entrance atrium of Neiman Marcus' store by Union Square in San Francisco. Here are photos I took a few weeks ago: Restaurant level Looking down at entrance by Union Square The site of Neiman Marcus for many years was the location of the City of Paris store that eventually became cited as an architectural landmark (details here). After City of Paris closed, Neiman Marcus razed the structure and replaced it with the present building. The centerpiece of the City of Paris was a dome with a glass image of a sailing ship, and this was restored and incorporated in the corner of the new building facing Union Square. It can be seen in the top photo, above. As the lower photo indicates, classical details are included at various levels of the atrium. Although I remember seeing the City of Paris building, I can't recall having been in it. So I have no opinion regarding whether or not it should have been preserved. The Neiman Marcus building is blah on the outside and okay-retail-space inside. Except for the Union Square corner shown above. That bit I like a lot. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 16, 2009 | perma-link | (4) comments

Saturday, November 14, 2009


Zdeno on Core Principles
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Inspired by a recent post post on Libertarianism, Zdeno offers (along with his comments to the linked post) the following thoughts. * * * * Political beliefs have a tendency to cluster. What connection is there between abortion, gun control, welfare and the war in Iraq? On the surface, there is none – but get an average person tell me how he feels about any one of these issues, and I’ll bet even odds I can predict his position on the others. Even among the 2Blowhards readership, a free-thinking and unconventional group if there ever was one, most of us have no trouble self-identifying as broadly Progressive, Conservative, or Libertarian. The observation that people in each of these camps tend to agree with each other an awful lot indicates that there must be some defining belief, set of values, or method of looking at and interpreting the world, that sets them apart from each other. My question today: What are the core principles and beliefs that lead you to whatever ideology you subscribe to? If you’re a Libertarian, tell us about the core principles of Libertarianism, if you’re a Progressive etc. Let’s do some introspection, and try to come up with a unified theory of each of the major (or non-major) belief systems in existence today. I’ll kick things off with some broad strokes, and hopefully we can refine things as we go: 1) “Pure” Libertarianism is based on the normative judgement that every human has a natural right of ownership to their body, the fruits of their labour, and the right to enter into binding contracts which may not subsequently be broken. Pragmatic Libertarianism is based on the positive belief that a society which adheres closely to the above values will be optimal from a utilitarian perspective. 2) Ideological Conservatism is based on the belief that traditions and institutions that currently exist have stood the test of time for a reason, and that we should be extremely cautious about meddling with them. Attempts to change societies and create a more “just” political structure and distribution of wealth are generally undertaken by self-interested parties whose efforts almost inevitably do more harm than good. Practically, many Conservatives are simply people who are doing well for themselves in the present order of society, and would prefer it not be tinkered with. * * * * My two cents are that few people fit solidly into a cluster. For instance, my wife regularly votes Republican but is strongly pro-abortion. I am basically conservative but, like many other conservatives, agree with libertarians on the desirability of small government. On foreign policy, I'm (sorry folks) essentially neocon to the extent that I'd rather fight a small war first rather than let matters drift to the point that a huge, disastrous war eventually occurs (think World War 2) -- though it's necessary to pick and choose where/when to fight small wars. I say this as an army veteran who sweated... posted by Donald at November 14, 2009 | perma-link | (36) comments

Friday, November 13, 2009


Don't Know Jack
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Apparently this has been going on for a while, but I didn't notice it until I drove to California and back recently. It seems that the regional fast-food chain Jack in the Box (see here for details if you're not familiar with it) has changed its logotype. The old logo, thanks to years of advertising, has become strongly associated with "Jack" the company spokesman -- the ball-shaped head and yellow cap also having been part of store signage for periods of time. Logotypes, old (left) and new (right) Jack "himself" Okay, so the new logo is adult, sophisticated, clean and doubtless embodies a host of additional presumed design virtues. I think it's a mistake. This is a fast-food, mostly-hamburger joint and not some upscale veggie lounge, as the new logo suggests. Bright, brash and eye-catching are what's needed, and the previous logo supplied enough of that. What we have now looks like the result of some snobbish design consultant thinking too hard. Plus a corporate management that doesn't seem to understand the company's heart. For the sake of piling on, here is another unhappy observer's take. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 13, 2009 | perma-link | (11) comments

Thursday, November 12, 2009


Sacred Art Rumblings
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- 2Blowhards friend Nikos Salingaros alerts me that there has been issued "an appeal for the Catholic Church to return to human and spiritual values in its art and architecture. If it works it will be a revolution, since the Catholic Church is a big sponsor of the Arts. It might also shake up the nihilistic cult that now controls the Arts." An article describing the situation is here. And a website Nikos linked to in his email is here. Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to meet with artists on 21 November, and the appeal was issued with that meeting in mind. I'm not familiar with the current state of sacred art, but gather from Nikos' email that it might have slid into the postmodernism we see daily in venues from art galleries to magazine illustrations. At any rate, I'm not sure what to make of this given that we are more than a week away from the meeting and Benedict either will or won't heed the appeal. And should he heed it, there is a question of whether he will heed some or all of the points it makes. Should Benedict decide to become involved with the matter of sacred art, I suspect there will be a large outcry from many corners of the art community. And given the recent history of hostility to the Roman Catholic Church by news media, I further suspect that coverage of the Pope's actions will be pretty negative. So we shall see what 21 November brings: nothing, a media firestorm, or "something completely different" as the Monty Python troupe would put it. As for me, I think the Church has every right to do what it wishes regarding its art even though the process might prove to be a public relations problem. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 12, 2009 | perma-link | (9) comments

Wednesday, November 11, 2009


Limits to Libertarianism
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- I tend to agree with a concept encountered years ago while reading Crane Brinton's account of the French Revolution. It has to do with tipping points of ideology-driven political movements. In particular, the point where a drive to ideological purity forces out real-world practicality. Where movement members judged not pure enough are ejected or otherwise eliminated. And the movement spirals away to irrelevance or even self-destruction. I admit not having intimate knowledge of libertarianism (and Libertarianism in the political party sense). I never made time to read any of the works of Ayn Rand. Nor have I paid much attention to Libertarian Party platforms and candidates. My interest and knowledge levels can best be described as casual. Libertarianism appeals to me in its quest for limited government. But it seems less persuasive otherwise because its doctrine (as I understand it) of radical individualism has within it the seeds of the situation described by Brinton. In other words, doctrinal purity can be the enemy of attaining and exercising political power. This is a risk for any party that is strongly idea-based. There are plenty of "libertarians" and "Libertarians" (capital "L" for those who identify with the party) here in the 2Blowhards neighborhood, so I figure this is an opportunity to find out a few things. For instance: The quest for individual liberty/freedom, taken to its extreme, seems to lead to anarchism. Are there differences between libertarianism and anarchism that prevent libertarianism from drifting into anarchism? Can there be such a thing as "big-tent Libertarianism?" Or is there a need for ideological purity that severely constrains Libertarian expansion to major party status? To what degree do libertarianism and isolationism overlap? I would think that the questions just posed are fairly common and that there are standard answers to them. Nevertheless, I (and perhaps some readers) remain ignorant and need to be set straight regarding these and similar matters. Libertarian (and non- or anti-libertarian) comments are appreciated. However, flame-wars are not; please try to stick to ideas and issues. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 11, 2009 | perma-link | (32) comments

Tuesday, November 10, 2009


Boring Post About Cameras
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- I'm back from California where, among other things, I gave my new digital camera a workout. As a result, you are hereby warned that what follows is one of those excruciatingly boring posts combining hobbyist navel-gazing and nerdy number references. If cameras don't interest you, please bail out before it's too late and you're sucked into The Quicksand of Geek. [Pause to the sound of scurrying computer mice] My old camera, a Nikon Coolpix S5, took good photos within the limits of its capabilities, but those capabilities proved to be annoyingly limited. Indoor, non-flash photos were usually blurred and the optical telephoto was on the order of 3X. For a while I was most interested in being able to get decent non-flash pictures and focused on cameras that did well on that task. Then I got to thinking that I used telephoto a lot more, so that had to weigh more heavily. With a budget limit of $400 dollars I finally bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR1. Its lens capability in classical SLR terms is a zoom from 25 to 200mm. This approximates the range I had available (by switching lenses) on the Nikon F cameras I used a lot when in the Far East during my army days. All that capability fitting in a pocked contrasted to all the camera and lens cases dangling from my neck when I was traipsing through Tokyo: amazing progress! Self-portrait at Santa Barbara Biltmore This is a non-flash photo taken at the Four Seasons Biltmore hotel in Montecito in the Santa Barbara area. The lighting conditions were pretty contrasty and the focus zone was indefinite, but the camera did a fairly decent job, considereing. I am pleased with it. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 10, 2009 | perma-link | (4) comments

Sunday, November 8, 2009


Incomprehensible Sports
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- I recently wrote about how silly many sports can seem to people disinterested in them. Today the subject is sports that are incomprehensible to ignorant spectators. Sports such as basketball, soccer and hockey are probably easy to figure out because an object has to be moved about until hit enters a target zone. For me, one sport I watched that made almost no sense is cricket. Without researching the rules, mere observation yielded only a sketchy sense of what was happening. Any other nominees? Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 8, 2009 | perma-link | (12) comments

Saturday, November 7, 2009


Silly Sports
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Even though some people become wrapped up into them to the point that the scene is almost indistinguishable from warfare, to a disinterested outsider, most (all?) sports can appear silly to some extent. Consider: Rolling a ball to knock over pieces of wood. Kicking an air-filled bladder up and down a field. Bouncing a ball across a floor and then trying to hit a target with it (the ball, not the floor -- though the latter prospect is intriguing). I could go on with such verbal twists, but you surely get the idea. This leads to the question of which sport seems silliest to outsiders. Golf was almost my first choice, but I got to thinking more deeply. The game seems to be an extension of the simple, happy act of swatting a small stone along a field using a stick. That I can related to, even though I don't golf. No, to me the silliest sports involve whacking something back and forth using a flat-surfaced object of some sort. Badminton, ping-pong, squash and tennis, to be precise. It's the intercession of the hitting device as an extension of the arm that pushes these sports into the "huh?" realm for me. Any other candidate sports? Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 7, 2009 | perma-link | (15) comments

Friday, November 6, 2009


Blut, Eisen and Survival
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- The Great War brought forth a number of books dealing with the soldier's life, some fictional, others autobiographical. Probably the best known is All Quiet on the Western Front (In Westen Nichts Neues -- nothing new in the west). Most of the well-known ones had an anti-war tone. I bought an account better known in Europe than in America -- Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger (29 March, 1895 – 17 February, 1998) -- two and a half years ago, but didn't get far into it. Having read more about the Great War in recent months, I grabbed it for trip reading here in California and now I've nearly finished it. As you can see from Jünger's dates, he lived almost until his 103rd birthday. But it's a wonder he got past 11 November, 1918. Jünger was in the thick of things on the Western Front from early 1915 until the end with short time-outs for leave, NCO and officers training as well as hospital stays. He was a highly aggressive junior officer who went on dangerous raids largely for the hell of it. By the end of the war, he had been awarded the pour le Mérite, the highest German military order. The Wikipedia article linked above deals with Jünger's political and literary life and goes wrong, in my judgment, regarding Storm of Steel which it characterized stating "This book by which Jünger became suddenly famous has been seen as glorifying war." I do not see glorification of war in the book. Nor do I see it as anti-war. It strikes me as being brutally descriptive of both the élan of Jünger and some fellow soldiers and the literal blood and guts suffered by the unlucky. The notion of luck is key to understanding Jünger's narrative. He experienced a number of close calls, yet survived. Others caught the British sniper's bullet in the throat, were ripped apart by shrapnel or buried in a collapsed trench during artillery bombardment. Derring-do and courage are present and perhaps some might call that "glorification." But balancing those accounts are many passages dealing with the dead and dying. Jünger takes care to describe the case of newly married Lieutenant Zürn after a battle: "Now he was lying on a door, half-stripped, with the waxy colour that is a sure sign of imminent death, staring up at me with sightless eyes as I stepped out to squeeze his hand." Jünger was a realist. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 6, 2009 | perma-link | (14) comments

Thursday, November 5, 2009


Ideas, Packaging and Comments
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- After Michael retired things became pretty dull here, if comments to posts were any measure of reader interest and involvement. Matter of fact, I was wondering if there were many readers left. True, my art and cars and design kinds of posts seldom attract lots of comments, and I was writing a number of those pieces for a while. I thought that I, with the welcome aid of guest-posters, would stir things up a bit to get a better fix on reader interest. So I posted some comment bait -- something even Michael would do occasionally. Michael's comment-bait often had to do with sex. I'm not at all comfortable writing sex stuff. But I can write about politics and know that that's another hot subject. I don't plan to turn this into a politics blog. There are more than enough of those around. But expect something political from time to time, mostly in response to current events. Michael liked to write about immigration a lot and his perspective on matters political had a libertarian tinge. While I agree with him on immigration, I doubt I'll write about it much. And while I agree with some aspects of libertarianism, my current state of political evolution is someplace in the cluster of Scoop Jackson Democrat (after all, my mom knew him and I met him on several occasions), Reagan Republican and [Gasp! Horrors!!] Neocon. But fear not: while that's where I come from, I don't plan to use 2Blowhards as a bully political-conversion pulpit. It's ideas that I want to toss out for discussion. My take is that 2Blowhards is, at its core, a blog about ideas. When I post something longer than a snippet, I usually try to toss in more than one idea even though the post has a manifest topic or otherwise dress up the piece in an attempt to make it more entertaining. Here's an example -- a recent post about third parties in United States presidential politics. I used Rush Limbaugh as a "hook" to introduce the topic and agreed with his conclusion that such parties are unsuccessful in winning the presidency and that it's better to move a major party in the direction you desire. I suppose, had I sloughed off my sloth, I could have turned up a liberal commentator who had made the exact same point. But I used Limbaugh because I was familiar with his stance on the matter and had heard that part of the radio program I linked to -- this made creating the post easy. However, some readers saw the word "Limbaugh" and focused on it rather than the matter of merits of third parties, the theme of the post. This is nothing new. Comment threads have lives of their own. I recall a few years back Michael really, really wanted comments on a certain issue, but the commenters ignored his issue and focused on something else. Michael even hopped in, asking for comments... posted by Donald at November 5, 2009 | perma-link | (10) comments

Wednesday, November 4, 2009


Does Obama Actually Like America?
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Given all the nasty things his for-20-years pastor, Rev. Wright, has said about this country, given that he has gone out of his way on numerous occasions to apologize for the history of the United States and given his effort to transform America into something it has never been (a European-style socialist state), I'm pretty sure President Obama is no fan of his own country. Of course, a number of folks agree with his position. One of them seems to be his wife. This is not to say one has to like everything about one's own country -- how many people are there who do that? But wanting a major transformation against the grain of the past is a different order of magnitude. In effect, this is creating a new, fundamentally different country; might as well change the name while he's at it. It's possible I'm mistaken and that Obama is a super-ultra-hyper-times-twenty Patriot of the First Rank. So feel free to have at me in Comments. Extra points for creative use of the 1930s slogan "Communism is 20th century Americanism." Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 4, 2009 | perma-link | (65) comments

Tuesday, November 3, 2009


Zdeno on Fratire
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Zdeno is back, this time discussing a literary genre that's new to non-twentysomething me. * * * * * In case my previous posts haven't completely strained my credibility among the sane and sensible of the Blowhard readership, I thought I'd finish the job today by venturing into the darkest, foulest, most wretched corner of contemporary literature. The genre I refer to goes by the name Fratire , and it is exactly what it sounds like: Literature written by and for young men, celebrating contemporary masculinity in all its adolescent ingloriousness. The unrivaled king of the Fratirists is Tucker Max. No description could possibly do justice to Max's literary stylings, so I quote at length below: From: The Absinthe Donuts Story 10:20: We station ourselves in the kitchen. A fat girl walks in. It's game time. "Well, say goodbye to all the leftovers." 10:21: Apparently, this fatty seems to think she can hang. The Medina Division made better tactical decisions: Fatty "What did you say?" Tucker "Can you not hear me? Are your ears fat too?" Fatty [Look of astonishment, stares at my friends cracking up] "EXCUSE ME?" Tucker "I'm sorry. Really I am. [I open the fridge] Would you like cheesecake or chocolate cake? Probably both, I'm guessing." Fatty [Turns and leaves in utter astonishment] Tucker "Hey Sara Lee, I was only kidding! COME BACK HERE--MY FRIEND LIKES TO GO HOGGIN. MORE CUSHION FOR THE PUSHIN! IT'S LIKE RIDING A MOPED!!" Tucker has arrived. 10:23: Rich knows me from undergrad, and knows how to ride my hot streaks by provoking me, "come on man, you can do better. There are plenty of people around here to make fun of." Express elevator to hell, going down. I give him my voice recorder and a simple order, "Don't miss anything." 10:26: I see a girl wearing two colored tank tops over each other. This is too easy: Tucker "Hey 1985 Madonna, are you gonna get the person who did that?" Girl "Did what?" Tucker "Spilled 80's all over you." Girl [Confused look] Tucker "I know I'd be pissed if I looked like an extra from Desperately Seeking Susan." 10:29: Eddie points out a girl wearing the standard anti-globalization outfit. It is topped off with a "No Blood for Oil" button. Rich whispers in my ear, "You gotta get her. Come on man. Do it--for us...for your country." Eddie starts humming God Bless America. 10:29: I storm over. Rich says into the voice recorder, "Target acquired...we are weapons hot." 10:30: I introduce myself to her as Alger Hiss. She doesn't get the joke. Time to be blunt: Tucker "Do you hate the World Bank?" Girl "Uhh, umm, well, I mean, yeah, I feel that..." Tucker "You don't hate the World Bank." Girl "I don't?" Tucker "No. You're mad at your father. You just want daddy to hug you more." Girl "What?" Tucker "You were a sociology major weren't you?" Girl "NO!" Tucker "What was your major?"... posted by Donald at November 3, 2009 | perma-link | (44) comments

Sunday, November 1, 2009


California Notebook
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- I'm in California and will be on the road for another eight or so days and post when possible. Below are short shots about what I've noticed so far. * Despite a nice dose of rain a couple of weeks ago, it's still very dry here. Interstate 5 passes by the start of the lake behind Shasta Dam. Every other time I've passed through the Lakehead area (and I've done it dozens of times over the last 40 years) there has been lake water. Sometimes it's been up to the brim. Mostly the level has been down to a greater or lesser extent. But this trip there was no lake at all there. Just a lot of red soil in sloping banks with a narrow cut at the bottom created by the Sacramento River. Closer to the dam there was a lake surface, so it's not totally dry -- by drier than I've ever seen it. I hope California gets a rainy winter because it needs it badly. * San Francisco's tourist zones are holding up pretty well. One sign of slackness was that we were able to ride cables cars without much delay. (Sometimes, the wait is prohibitively long unless one is at a terminus; at intermediate stops you can't get on unless someone gets off in a full-car situation.) The Post Street - Union Square area looked good and there were few empty storefronts. Nancy's impression was that the square didn't have visible deralects, though there were panhandlers on corners a few blocks away. One clever fellow down by Fisherman's Wharf crouched on a sidewalk disguised as a bush. A happy fellow and surrounding crowd, especially when he confused dogs seeking a rest room. * I suspect most tourists regard the Bay Area as highly urban. And it is -- mostly. Yet there are places only a few miles from heavily built up areas that are home to horse and beef cattle farms. I'm thinking of valleys and canyons along the hills separating Oakland, Hayward and other East Bay cities from cities such as San Ramon and Danville in the next valley to the east. For the record, the horsey stuff I saw (along with rural dog kennels) was along Crow's Canyon and the cattle were in the Orinda-Moraga area. Later, Donald... posted by Donald at November 1, 2009 | perma-link | (0) comments