Julian Fellowes Talks About Downton Abbey

Monday, January 6th, 2014

Julian Fellowes — now Lord Fellowes of West Stafford — talks about Downton Abbey — and nostalgia for past eras:

I think almost every period—I’d exclude the 14th century—has some stuff going for it, and some stuff that seems intolerable. I don’t think our own period is any different. We have examples of injustice and bad government in the world today that are just as terrible as anything that was happening in the 19th century. There was a naive desire in me to kind of present history in a way so everything was getting better, but I don’t really believe the age we live in is the best ever. There’s something about our lack of personal discipline that makes us slightly vulnerable and weak as a society. I think they were tougher, partly because they had to be tougher. Some pain was the lot of every human being alive. It didn’t matter if you were the King of France. We don’t have that.

We think we can go from cradle to grave without any pain at all. As a generation, we can be rather feeble about toughing it out. Even the people who were working in those households, I don’t think they were all miserable. It was a tough job but if you had a good employer, like anything else, there were worse places to be. It was a hard life—you had to get up early, work very hard. They had a more realistic expectation of life.

With marriage, our generation thinks that we should all be incredibly happy all the time. The moment we are not incredibly happy, something’s wrong with the marriage. Well, nothing’s wrong with the marriage! You’ve signed up to live with someone for a half a century, and as long as you still have stuff in common and are still close, it’s fine. But you see people getting divorced and you think “What do you think is waiting out there?” I kind of liked that [the generation that grew up in the interwar period] would have laughed at this idea.

Degrees of Value

Monday, January 6th, 2014

In the field of higher education, reality is outrunning parody, Glenn Reynolds says:

A recent feature on the satire website the Onion proclaimed, “30-Year-Old Has Earned $11 More Than He Would Have Without College Education.” Allowing for tuition, interest on student loans, and four years of foregone income while in school, the fictional student “Patrick Moorhouse” wasn’t much better off. His years of stress and study, the article japed, “have been more or less a financial wash.”

“Patrick” shouldn’t feel too bad. Many college graduates would be happy to be $11 ahead instead of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, behind. The credit-driven higher education bubble of the past several decades has left legions of students deep in debt without improving their job prospects. To make college a good value again, today’s parents and students need to be skeptical, frugal and demanding. There is no single solution to what ails higher education in the U.S., but changes are beginning to emerge, from outsourcing to online education, and they could transform the system.

Though the GI Bill converted college from a privilege of the rich to a middle-class expectation, the higher education bubble really began in the 1970s, as colleges that had expanded to serve the baby boom saw the tide of students threatening to ebb. Congress came to the rescue with federally funded student aid, like Pell Grants and, in vastly greater dollar amounts, student loans.

Predictably enough, this financial assistance led colleges and universities to raise tuition and fees to absorb the resources now available to their students. As University of Michigan economics and finance professor Mark Perry has calculated, tuition for all universities, public and private, increased from 1978 to 2011 at an annual rate of 7.45%. By comparison, health-care costs increased by only 5.8%, and housing, notwithstanding the bubble, increased at 4.3%. Family incomes, on the other hand, barely kept up with the consumer-price index, which grew at an annual rate of 3.8%.

For many families, the gap between soaring tuition costs and stagnant incomes was filled by debt. Today’s average student debt of $29,400 may not sound overwhelming, but many students, especially at private and out-of-state colleges, end up owing much more, often more than $100,000. At the same time, four in 10 college graduates, according to a recent Gallup study, wind up in jobs that don’t require a college degree.

Students and parents have started to reject this unsustainable arrangement, and colleges and universities have felt the impact. According to a recent analysis by this newspaper, private schools are facing a long-term decline in enrollment.

Power to the People

Monday, January 6th, 2014

I recently cited a long-lost interview with Frank Herbert — but I only cited the third part, not the second:

One of the things I noticed as a reporter — I was a journalist longer than I’ve been on this side of the table — is that in all the marching in the streets in the ’60s, the people who were shouting “Power to the People” didn’t mean power to the people.  They meant “power to me and I’ll tell the people what to do.”  When you questioned them it was confirmed at every turn.

Power to the people will really happen when the people wake up to the fact that you can’t separate economics from politics, when they wake up to their own motivations, what they want, what can be sold to them.  Because the real pitfall of democracy is that it is demagogue-prone.  We like to have people stand up and tell us what we want to hear.  I have conditioned myself so that the minute I hear a politician standing up there saying nice things that sound good to lot of people my alarm signals go off and I say, “Why, you damned son of a bitch, you’re just another damned demagogue.

I don’t think there’s a fucking bit of difference between a bureaucracy that is instituted by a democratic regime, a state; socialist regime, a communist regime or a capitalist regime.  Take a look at us right now.  We have created a bureaucracy in this country which is completely out of the hands of the people.  Your votes do not touch it.  One day when I was working in Washington, D.C. as a speech-writer for a U.S. senator from Oregon, I was at a meeting of the Department of Commerce and a very, very high department official, a lifetime bureaucrat, was talking about another senator, who was giving them some trouble.  And this high bureaucrat called this senator a “transient.” And sure enough, that senator was defeated in the next election.  So he was a transient.  But the bureaucrat was, still there, and he retired on a separate retirement system for the federal bureaucracy.

Spandrell notes that the bureaucracy seems to rule everywhere.

By the way, part one of that Herbert interview is, amusingly, about how good the then-new Dune movie is.

Girls

Sunday, January 5th, 2014

I found HBO’s Girls unwatchable, but this promo makes the upcoming season look much, much better:

Mom Song

Sunday, January 5th, 2014

Old Spice’s new ad does have people talking about it. Brace yourself for Mom Song:

Smellcome to manhood.

Why American Students Can’t Write

Sunday, January 5th, 2014

Robert Pondiscio explains why American students can’t write:

“When our students resist writing, it is usually because writing has been treated as little more than a place to expose all they do not know about spelling, penmanship and grammar,” observes Lucy Calkins, probably the workshop model’s premier guru. She is almost certainly correct.

This leaves exactly two options: The first is to de-emphasize spelling and grammar. The other is to teach spelling and grammar. But at too many schools, it’s more important for a child to unburden her 10-year-old soul writing personal essays about the day she went to the hospital, dropped an ice cream cone on a sidewalk, or shopped for new sneakers. It’s more important to write a “personal response” to literature than engage with the content. This is supposed to be “authentic” writing. There is nothing inherently inauthentic about research papers and English essays.

Earlier this year, David Coleman, the principal architect of the widely adopted Common Core Standards, infamously told a group of educators, “As you grow up in this world, you realize people really don’t give a shit about what you feel or what you think.” His bluntness made me wince, but his impulse is correct. We have overvalued personal expression. The unlived life is not worth examining. The pendulum has swung too far.

Inspired by the Stuka and Sturmovik

Saturday, January 4th, 2014

A-10 Warthog

The infamous A-10 “Warthog” — officially the Thunderbolt II — was inspired by the German Stuka and and the Russian Sturmovik, rather than its American namesake:

  • High maneuverability and acceleration for a fully-loaded close-support aircraft operating at speeds from 150 to 300 knots. That was for “staying within sight of extremely hard-to-see camouflaged targets and for operating under 500-foot to 1,000-foot ceilings,” says Sprey. Neither the Stuka nor Sturmovik could do this, but the A-10 can.
  • Aircraft survivability, including fire-suppression systems and bulletproof, fully redundant controls plus lots of cockpit armor. Not only could this protection save a pilot’s life, but it also boosts a pilot’s morale as he flies into heavy ground fire, Sprey notes.
  • High sortie rates from austere and unpaved airfields. “The ability of the Stuka and Sturmovik, operating out of dirt fields up near the troops, to fly five sorties or more per day under combat crisis conditions proved to be an enormous force multiplier,” Sprey says.
  • Multiple radios that enable pilots to communicate with ground troops. Sturmovik units were hampered by having radios only in the flight leaders’ planes. And those radios couldn’t talk to Red Army ground troops. But it wasn’t just the Soviets who couldn’t communicate. Before the A-10, no U.S. fighter had all the necessary radios, according to Sprey.
  • A cannon large enough to kill tanks and with enough ammunition for 12 firing passes, plus sufficient fuel for two to three hours supporting ground troops. The Ju-87G’s 37-millimeter guns were the best airborne tank-killing cannons of World War II, Sprey says, but they only had enough ammunition for six passes.

Run-Prone Financial Contracts

Friday, January 3rd, 2014

Bank runs are a feature of how banks get their money, John Cochrane says, not where they invest their money:

So a better approach, in my view, would be to purge the system of run-prone financial contracts — that is, fixed-value promises that are payable on demand and cause bankruptcy if not honored, like bank deposits and overnight debt. Instead, we subsidize short-term debt via government guarantees, tax deductibility, and favorable regulation, and then we try to regulate financial institutions not to overuse that which we subsidize.

[...]

[I]f we purge the system of run-prone financial contracts, essentially requiring anything risky to be financed by equity, long-term debt, or contracts that allow suspension of payment without forcing the issuer to bankruptcy, then we won’t have runs, which means we won’t have crises. People will still lose money, as they did in the tech stock crash, but they won’t react by running and forcing needless bankruptcies.

This sounds radical to Arnold Kling, but I’ve long held that demand deposits fail spectacularly.

Release the Hounds

Friday, January 3rd, 2014

You probably heard that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful uncle was executed recently, but did you hear how? He was stripped naked, thrown into a cage, and eaten alive by a pack of 120 ravenous dogs. (I’m not sure they have any other kind of dog in North Korea.)

When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die.

Parkinson’s Law

Friday, January 3rd, 2014

Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion, so, Cyril Northcote Parkinson noted, the number of the officials and the quantity of the work to be done are not related to each other at all:

Factor I. — An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals; and

Factor II. — Officials make work for each other.

We must now examine these motive forces in turn.

The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates

To comprehend Factor I, we must picture a civil servant called A who finds himself overworked. Whether this overwork is real or imaginary is immaterial; but we should observe, in passing, that A’s sensation (or illusion) might easily result from his own decreasing energy — a normal symptom of middle-age. For this real or imagined overwork there are, broadly speaking, three possible remedies

(1) He may resign.

(2) He may ask to halve the work with a colleague called B.

(3) He may demand the assistance of two subordinates, to be called C and D.

There is probably no instance in civil service history of A choosing any but the third alternative. By resignation he would lose his pension rights. By having B appointed, on his own level in the hierarchy, he would merely bring in a rival for promotion to W’s vacancy when W (at long last) retires. So A would rather have C and D, junior men, below him. They will add to his consequence; and, by dividing the work into two categories, as between C and D, he will have the merit of being the only man who comprehends them both.

It is essential to realise, at this point, that C and D are, as it were, inseparable. To appoint C alone would have been impossible. Why? Because C, if by himself, would divide the work with A and so assume almost the equal status which has been refused in the first instance to B; a status the more emphasised if C is A’s only possible successor. Subordinates must thus number two or more, each being kept in order by fear of the other’s promotion. When C complains in turn of being overworked (as he certainly will) A will, with the concurrence of C, advise the appointment of two assistants to help C. But he can then avert internal friction only by advising the appointment of two more assistants to help D, whose position is much the same. With this recruitment of E, F, G and H, the promotion of A is now practically certain.

The Law of Multiplication of Work

Seven officials are now doing what one did before. This is where Factor II comes into operation. For these seven make so much work for each other that all are fully occupied and A is actually working harder than ever. An incoming document may well come before each of them in turn. Official E decides that it falls within the province of F, who places a draft reply before C, who amends it drastically before consulting D, who asks G to deal with it. But G goes on leave at this point, handing the file over to H, who drafts a minute, which is signed by D and returned to C, who revises his draft accordingly and lays the new version before A.

What does A do? He would have every excuse for signing the thing unread, for he has many other matters on his mind. Knowing now that he is to succeed W next year, he has to decide whether C or D should succeed to his own office. He had to agree to G going on leave, although not yet strictly entitled to it. He is worried whether H should not have gone instead, for reasons of health. He has looked pale recently — partly but not solely because of his domestic troubles. Then there is the business of F’s special increment of salary for the period of the conference, and E’s application for transfer to the Ministry of Pensions. A has heard that D is in love with a married typist and that G and F are no longer on speaking terms — no one seems to know why. So A might be tempted to sign C’s draft and have done with it.

But A is a conscientious man. Beset as he is with problems created by his colleagues for themselves and for him — created by the mere fact of these officials’ existence — he is not the man to shirk his duty. He reads through the draft with care, deletes the fussy paragraphs added by C and H and restores the thing back to the form preferred in the first instance by the able (if quarrelsome) F. He corrects the English — none of these young men can write grammatically — and finally produces the same reply he would have written if officials C to H had never been born. Far more people have taken far longer to produce the same result. No one has been idle. All have done their best. And it is late in the evening before A finally quits his office and begins the return journey to Ealing. The last of the office lights are being turned off in the gathering dusk which marks the end of another day’s administrative toil. Among the last to leave, A reflects, with bowed shoulders and a wry smile, that late hours, like grey hairs, are among the penalties of success.

The Savage Gentleman

Thursday, January 2nd, 2014

Philip Wylie only wrote a few works that might qualify as science fiction, but they were quite influential: Gladiator, which likely inspired Superman, The Savage Gentleman, which likely inspired Doc Savage, and When Worlds Collide, with Edwin Balmer, which inspired Alex Raymond’s comic strip, Flash Gordon.

I’ve mentioned Gladiator before:

Reading Gladiator now, as someone who takes Superman for granted, is an almost disorienting experience; it’s almost as if Siegel and Shuster took Wylie’s work and surgically removed, even inverted, all of its dark, lost generation irony.

In Gladiator, the protagonist, Hugo Danner, is born in a small town in the Midwest — Indian Creek, Colorado — but his parents are a hen-pecked local college biology professor and an obsessively religious shrew of a woman — more backward and small-minded than salt of the earth.

Danner leaps across a river, jumps fifty feet straight up, lifts a cannon overhead with one arm, kills a shark by ripping its jaws apart, fells a charging bull with a fist between the eyes, and lifts a car by its bumper and turns it around in the road. “All of these were, in 1930, fresh and new and very exciting to read about,” Wylie’s biographer notes — but even though Superman goes on to do all of these things, the tone of Wylie’s novel couldn’t be further from a four-color comic book. When Danner joins the French Foreign Legion at the start of the Great War — which certainly sounds romantic, doesn’t it? — he ends up killing German soldiers. Many, many German soldiers. When his friend dies in an artillery barrage that he survives, he goes into a berserk rage and tears apart his enemies with his bare hands. It feels like digging his hands into warm cow manure.

The Savage Gentleman starts with a pulpy, if not quite sci-fi premise: what if you took a boy, of good stock, and raised him, away from society, to be a… well, not quite a superman, but an ideal mortal man.

In pulp-author Lester Dent‘s hands, this becomes Doc Savage, raised from birth by his father and a team of dedicated scientists to become the ultimate crime-fighting hero.

In Wylie’s novel, Henry Stone is the son of a newspaper magnate whose wife has run off. The father takes the infant boy away from New York, and, with the help of his engineer and his faithful black servant, builds a new home for all of them on an uninhabited island. There the boy is raised hunting and fishing, building and farming, studying and training. His father personally tutors him on how to behave amongst gentlemen — and warns him off women.

When Henry finally returns to civilization, in his prime, he finds his training obsolete. Times have changed:

By and large, Henry had not enjoyed what he saw. Everything was a reflection of his first impressions, colored by his father’s lessons and marred by his experience with Marian [the "sophisticated" granddaughter of his father's old lawyer]. Anyone taken from the late nineteenth century and hurled into the present day without preparation would experience the same dismay and revulsion.

Those who lived through it witnessed a change so gradual that it seemed almost inappreciable — although thousands of the older generation are still perpetually raising their hands in horror. They saw the polka become ragtime and the ragtime war music and the war music jazz. They watched corsets disappear and skirts rise and rouge come slowly to the lips of the guileless. They were shocked by the flapper who drank from a flask until the flapper became so familiar that she was commonplace and until they perceived that the skies had not yet fallen.

Other things happened step by step to that generation. Prohibition came — and they assumed that their own drinking could continue and were resentful of any effort to check it. When rebellion became a fad, they marched in the van — and as that rebellion bred gangs and political corruption, they looked on calmly, because it was not they who felt they were to blame.

Meanwhile the newspapers, and the magazines, the cinema and the radio and thousands of novels broadened their attitude toward morality.  Things were said in print that had not been put in writing since the silver age of Rome.  There were mutterings and censorships, but the movement toward tolerance and frank examination rolled over them.  Psychology developed a new sense of the reasons for human behavior that the public slowly and partially assimilated.  Thirty years of education and change marked the twentieth century.

Henry had missed them all.  He came untouched from the old era.

Wylie, writing in the 1930s, thinks “modern” psychology has some merit.

Henry’s speech to his aide, Tom, explains his position:

“I came here like Christopher Columbus. The new world was ahead of me. I was bursting with love for it, ambition, ideals. I had yearned for it for twenty years — ever since I was a child. I had been taught that it was a glorious place where a man could do a man’s work.

“What did I find? First — something so beautiful and breathtaking that I could not contain myself. The buildings and the machinery. We never imagined anything like it on the island. It seemed to me that humanity was at last reaching up toward the stars. That it had climbed out of the earth. I was ecstatic.

“Then I looked again. You have to look twice to see. The whole world is sour. Rotten. Despicable. It has emerged from the most terrible war of all time — a war that accomplished absolutely nothing. Blood in rivers in every direction and afterward — jealous piddling of little men. It’s sickening.

“Once there was in this country a standard of morals and manners. That’s gone. Vulgarity is everywhere. In the theaters and the radio and the newspapers. Nobody cares. Vicious men run through the streets with machine guns and shoot down children. Demagogues and morons and even criminals are elected political leaders. The bodies of government have become a shambles of cheap wit and expensive graft. My father warned me against women — and the women have sunk beneath the men. They’re painted prostitutes — even the old ones. Decency has deserted the best homes. Everyone fights for money. Money! There’s madness for it. Greed and exploitation. War and corruption. Stupidity and hatred.”

Rather… reactionary.

Popular Posts of 2013

Wednesday, January 1st, 2014

I just took a look back at my numbers for 2013. Here are the most popular posts during that calendar year, half of which are new, half of which are evergreen:

  1. Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees?
  2. Words from a Bosnian Survivalist (new)
  3. Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics
  4. Thermal Runaway
  5. No Longer Unthinkable (new)
  6. He-Man Opening Monologue
  7. Foux Da Fa Fa
  8. The Nazis a Warning from History (new)
  9. Richard Feynman’s Low IQ (new, but not from 2013!)
  10. Longbow vs. Armor (new, but not from 2013!)

Here are the most popular posts actually from 2013 and not from an earlier year:

  1. Words from a Bosnian Survivalist
  2. No Longer Unthinkable
  3. The Nazis a Warning from History
  4. Making Mordor’s Economy Work
  5. All Too Humane
  6. Comparing Vickies with Thetes
  7. Most Americans Against Race-Based College Admissions
  8. Reading Old Books
  9. Situational Awareness and Good Sense
  10. Fukushima’s Incredible Death Toll

Again, I’m not sure what to conclude.