Fox News describes the forthcoming summit on Texting While Driving.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will convene a summit of experts to figure out what to do about the problem of texting while driving, a practice studies and a growing number of accidents show can be deadly. … “The bottom line is, we need to put an end to unsafe cell phone use, typing on BlackBerrys and other activities that require drivers to take their eyes off the road and their focus away from driving,” LaHood said.
If LaHood thinks a summit will solve his problem he’s in for a surprise. There’s an even worse potential problem: texting while walking. JS Online reports that “the American College of Emergency Physicians went so far as to issue a warning recently about texting while walking, driving, in-line skating or engaging in some other activity. … Illinois is considering a ban on pedestrians using wireless devices while crossing streets.” When that’s been solved doctors will suddenly discover than an unusual number of people have choked at the dinner table because they were texting while eating. No activity is safe from the sinister encroachment of the cell phone keyboard. It has even been identified as a contributing cause to starting riots and associated with corrupting international speech. The New Yorker argues that what it calls “thumbspeak” is forcing the world to use American linguistic shorthand.
Under the constraints of the numeric-keypad technology, English has some advantages. The average English word has only five letters; the average Inuit word, for example, has fourteen. English has relatively few characters; Ethiopian has three hundred and forty-five symbols, which do not fit on most keypads. English rarely uses diacritical marks, and it is not heavily inflected. Languages with diacritical marks, such as Czech, almost always drop them in text messages. Portuguese texters often substitute “m” for the tilde. Some Chinese texters use Pinyin—that is, the practice of writing Chinese words using the Roman alphabet.
But English is also the language of much of the world’s popular culture. Sometimes it is more convenient to use the English term, but often it is the aesthetically preferred term—the cooler expression. Texters in all eleven languages that Crystal lists use “lol,” “u,” “brb,” and “gr8,” all English-based shorthands. The Dutch use “2m” to mean “tomorrow”; the French have been known to use “now,” which is a lot easier to type than “maintenant.” And there is what is known as “code-mixing,” in which two languages—one of them invariably English—are conflated in a single expression. Germans write “mbsseg” to mean “mail back so schnell es geht” (“as fast as you can”). So texting has probably done some damage to the planet’s cultural ecology, to lingo-diversity.
Untold billions of text messages are sent each month. One of the unexplored questions is what people have suddenly found it necessary to talk about. The famous mathematician John von Neumann was said to have read books while driving. But while von Neumann’s constant need for mental stimulation might be put down to the hyperactivity of genius, there is something new in the modern need to be constantly connected. Perhaps future generations who no longer remember a time when one simply walked, drove or ate — and did nothing else — will wonder what humanity did before texting was invented.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Do we REALLY need the Feds involved in this?
It seems to me that this could easily resolved at a much lower level of government, or is this just another case of Big Brother wanting to monitor and control every aspect of our lives?
Mind you, I think it’s damned dangerous to text or use cellphones whilst driving (most people are only marginally in control of their cars under the best of circumstances)I just don’t see this as being in need of Federal intervention.
BTW the guy on the motorcycle is the least rude driver in the video! He seems to be in complete control of his vehicle.
Some years ago I observed that this trend would drastically change one particular industry.
The Mob would no longer have to send out hit men. They would simply give the target a Mazda Miata and a texting cellphone and wait for the inevitable results.
Once upon a time a “summit” was something that happened between Kennedy and Khrushchev when they discussed nuclear weapons. Today the word signifies less exalted pursuits. The main thing is that government has got to be seen as doing something. After all, they’re taking a heck of a lot of money. The Wall Street Journal has an article describing what’s coming down the pipe.
And having taken all that money, they’ve got to provide service. Like saving the world from text messaging.
View this debate as a three cornered table. First we hear from those who want to “Do Something For the Children.”
The Imperialist Cultural Hegemonist Zionist Oppression of the Anglo-Saxons and their tiny word language must be smashed! It is the obsession with unregulated communication and crude productivity that chains the masses and distracts those who could bring a more nuanced and authentic appreciation for meaningful activity.
Second we have the representative of the Texters.
Buy, Sell, Oh look a bunny! Woo Hoo! Ohmigd is that a truck?
Finally there is a voice for Contemplation as a source of strength.
I sit beside the fire
And think of all that I have seen,
Of meadow flowers and butterflies
In summers that have been.
Of yellow leaves and gossamer
In autumns that there were,
With morning mist and silver sun
And wind upon my hair.
I sit beside the fire
And think of how the world will be
When winter comes without a spring
That I shall ever see.
For still there are so many things
That I have never seen.
In every wood, in every spring
There is a different green.
I sit beside the fire
And think of people long ago.
And people who will see a world
That I shall never know.
But all the while I sit and think
Of times there were before,
I listen for returning feet
And voices at the door–
“Elbereth Gilthoniel,”
“Silivren penna miriel
“O menel aglar elenath!
“Nachaered palandiriel
“O galadhremmin ennorath
“Fanuilos, lelinnathon
“Nef aear, si nef aearon!
“Nef aearon!”
-JRR Tolkien
Texting should be communication and communication should exist for a reason, to connect two or more individuals so that value can be added to their lives. The acolytes of government seek to control for its own sake. They are Inner Directed but they lack any values from which to proceed. That makes them seek for issues to use in their thirst for dominance to feed the emptiness within. The shallow and self obsessed texters and those abusing other technologies are also seeking stimulation without considering how their activity could effect other people. They are selfish and therefor bring little to any conversation that they force themselves into. KIndly old Professor T understood that Wisdom came from understanding yourself first sufficiently so that you could have something to say worth another human being’s time to listen to.
LoTM: “to feed the emptiness within”? I’d have to disagree with you on that — one of the very rare times I’d take issue with anything you write. I believe they need to control to grow. Control is their sustenance.
I worked in an embassy once where the Ambassador tasked us all with coming up with money-saving plans that would meet the State Department’s goal of reducing overseas expenditures by 10% (or some such artificial number). Our plans all envisioned cutting staff, curtailing services, etc. The Ambassador’s plan, when it was finally revealed and sent to Washington, called for growing the staff by 5% and doing more, but asking other foreign affairs agencies (USIA, USAID, etc.) to pick up the difference. He saw the demand to REDUCE as an opportunity to GROW. He went on to three more (ever larger) ambassadorial appointments and I learned a big lesson in the dynamics of bureaucratic maneuvering. F
There has to be a mathematical relationship between expanding federalism and inanity of legislation/policy: the more they insinuate themselves into our daily lives, the more trivial the objects of their attention.
It took me about a day after getting my first cell phone to realize I was gonna die if I kept trying to use it in the car. And I wasn’t even texting…
Here’s some trivia for Whiskey: psychologists tested male and female drivers attention and driving skills while using the phone. Both are impaired. However, a hands free device improves mens performance, but not women’s. This was attributed to men exchanging data (see you at 7pm) versus women getting in touch with their shared feelings (did she really say that!!).
LotM,
I really like your post just now, and especially the Tolkien poem, of which I was unaware.
And this:
Professor T understood that Wisdom came from understanding yourself first sufficiently so that you could have something to say worth another human being’s time to listen to…
A fine Bay Area poet, an Englishman, the late Thom Gunn, memorably defined poetry as “memorable speech.” (Gunn was a mentor of my friend Jim Powell, about whom I have written here in the past.)
Perhaps it is no accident that the practice of “texting” is contemporaneous with the virtual death of poetry (as a cultural force, anyway; I doubt that poetry can ever really “die”).
Texting seems to embody a form of communication so transient, insubstantial, and diaphanous as to be the perfect opposite of “memorable speech.”
Jamie Irons
And why not conduct this “summit” by cell phone, conversing back and forth by text messaging, so as to reduce the all-important carbon footprint of the proceedings?
Jamie Irons
Kirsten (#7),
Such a relationship is rather easy to dream up, and as a first approximation I propose:
If W(x) is defined as the wisdom of a proposed government policy, and x ( restricted to the domain of positive real numbers) is the size of a given governmental agency, then
W(x) == 1/ e^x
where “e” is of course the base of the natural logarithm.
Jamie Irons
lol Jamie.
Now we just need a name & a wikipedia entry
My 15 year old daughter sends over 3,000 texts a month!
Re: #8 Aaron. I have been walking to work, 3/4 of a mile, for about a year. I noticed almost every female solo occupant in a car is talking on the phone, and almost every solo occupant male is not.
LotM @5
That’s my favorite song from LOTR, and have put it to music. I have no idea how Tolkien might have heard it, but it’s not too shabby, if I do say so myself.
I believe texting and instant messaging, both of which I occasionally use to chat with friends, are perfect examples of technology meeting a basic need. You see, I know for a fact that I am far more clever and insightful on paper… I suppose I should say in print… than I am in person. I FEEL as though I think faster when writing than talking, but of course it’s just the pace that gives me time to think. We can’t all be Buckley, and of course I always feel stupid when I have to stop my thought mid-sentence as I search for that darn word… It feels like translating English into a foreign language: better English.
Rhetoric just isn’t taught. Anywhere. Every. You have to sign up for debate to order to receive any instruction on public speaking. Of course the schools are run by fools who seem to ignore the fact that all speaking is public. Give me a podium and a crowd and I’ll knock your socks off… but meet me one on one and watch me fumble and mumble.
l8tr
The guys can’t afford to be on the phone –somebody’s gotta be dodging the phoners –damn good thing the genders break 50/50 !
If government is going to be half of the economy we have to find lots & lots of things for it & its workers to do. Work expands to fill the time & number of people available.
I sent morse code while riding a bicycle, back when I was a kid, and no accidents resulted.
Of course the guy filming the texting motorcyclist is driving perfectly safe!
I worked several years on a nearby college campus and watched the cell phone users for a long time before I got one.
As soon as people leave the class they get on the phone, call someone, and the first thing they ask is invariably “what are you doing”.
Another observation, many many of these young professionals (medical school) use the phone as a prop to prevent interactions with others. Especially the common courtesies, such as Hellos in the hallway, holding the door for the next person, etc.
And like TWinOC I’ve noticed that i never EVER see beautiful young ladies anymore that don’t have one hand glued to their ear.
Buddy,
…It all started in the Cave Man Era hundreds of years ago…
Jamie Irons
Re: Aaron #20. That leads me to another observation, part of a woman’s attractiveness lies in demure and lady like behavior. A casualty of the modern era, for me, has been observing women who don’t realize, or don’t care, that they are in a public area, outside of their phone conversation, and assume the most witchy of attitudes with the other person on the line. I can’t count how many times I have been repulsed by such behavior, and found an otherwise attractive woman to be reclassified, in an instant.
It’s all a blanket issue of reckless endangerment, something that common-sense common law once covered sufficiently. Government wants to compartmentalize transgressions so as to increase its bureaucratic staff sizes.
As to all that irritating crap that people do with their phones and other “communication devices,” I don’t want government micromanaging them. If they cause an incident while being distracted by their phone, bust’em and fine’em if it applies, and that’s it.
The constant use of cell phones and other devices is a symptom of anxiety: all these people don’t want to be alone, and compensate by over-socializing. It’s crazy, literally, because too many people, and the governments they spawn, are acting like what was once a minority: neurotic, obsessive/compulsive control freaks who bother the shit out of what was once a majority, and whose numbers are dwindling — namely, the rest of us.
22 TW
Many of us can also live without men’s locker-room crudities on cell phones in public places.
More nannyism under the guise of “safety”. If merely using a cellphone is dangerous, then so is talking to your passenger. Where does this end?
And as usual, we have the standard liberal meme that we are uniquely dangerous to the rest of the world. What the heck is “lingo-diversity”? Sounds like something invented in an angry studies class. I don’t see them complaining about all the French words that infest English! Beef, anybody?
yo, the ghost in the machine has deleted my comments back thru a couple hours ago, and now won’t even post anything from my real data. have i sinned? I’m the guy with a similar name to luddy barsen.
shame too, because the deleted comments were uniformly wonderful, hilarious, inspiring, perspicacious, erudite, and contained the actual answers to the questions of the meaning of life. However, due to short term memory problems, i have alread forgo wh i said
Re #22 PA Cat. Absolutely, yes.
lud, the guy with the similar name will be glad when he learns that we will be taxed retroactively for keystrokes to fund the upnetgrade…. much as we are about to be taxed for miles commuted. Read bit about HR3311 here.
This is so obviously a threat to the general welfare. They must not wait! Bring Congress back from recess! (they’ll be happy to come, I hear) Urgent Moral Necessity!!
Make it a federal crime. A felony. Add 750,000 special federal police to enforce it. Remember “If you want to professionalize you must Federalize” Then when the practice is wiped out the Special Federal Police can just do other things.
luddy barsen you need to text your posts in igpay atinlay
Wise and Seasonable
I love the way the old guys used the language.
Wise and seasonable, that’s good.
The topic at hand reminds me of this:
“Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.” (II John 1:12)
In short, there’s nothing like face-to-face conversation. All other forms of communication are crippled in comparison; their advantage lies in allowing some level of communication between those who cannot meet face to face. Thus, it is better to know a few people face-to-face, than to know many folks on-line.
Furthermore, shunning face-to-face communication in favor of texting, telephone, internet, etc., not only completely misses the point of communication, it also leads to crippled friendships, since it devours time that might otherwise be spent face-to-face. Ironically, our wealth of communication technology has led to ever-increasing distance from our neighbors.
Bob Smith @25
Your supposition is the same as mine was; and so I was surprised to learn that, unlike the higher accident rate with even hands-free cell phone use, talking with a passenger does not increase the accident rate. The reason is not clear; the hypothesis is that driver and passenger adjust to the traffic conditions in a way that does not occur with one party to the conversation absent.
My guess is that talking with a passenger would be associated with a higher accident rate if it were an intense argument.
Also apparently listening to the radio or books-on-tape does not increase the accident rate except while fiddling with the tuner. In these instances, there is no distraction by a demand for a response to someone else.
Best wishes,
Jim
We can’t even read our own founding documents anymore with some good sense and a talent for understanding our own language.
We’re doomed.
Reepicheep,
There has been a set of full car subway ads in NYC from a chewing gum manufacturer that pushes exactly your point. They show people hugging kissing and just being together under slogans that urge the viewer to take a break from the internet and make real face time connecting with people.
Fifty or so years ago Ian Fleming had a passage in which Bond speculated on why it was dangerous for women to be drivers. His theory was that when women talked they had to turn around and look at the person they were talking to because they judged not just the words but the facial expression in determining the emotional content behind the message. Since that is missing in a phone conversation the theory would be validated to some extent if phones in cars adversely effected men as much or more then women.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship. For no statute can make one a natural born citizen. It’s a status, not a right. And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.
Leo Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen
35/LOTM:
One wonders what that has to do with chewing gum!
Agree that a federal “summit” is a ridiculous way to come to any real solutions. Its all posturing to make it appear the govt is doing something useful.
In reality, this is an actual problem. I’m sure we’ve all seen plenty of real-life examples. 99% of us are smart enough to NOT do stupid things. The other 1% are idiots which no legislation will ever fix.
I just don’t understand why existing local traffic laws wouldn’t allow police to ticket drivers today under some sort of reckless driving rule. Proactively — not after an accident has already occurred. If that isn’t possible or legal, then fine, legislate it, federal, state, whatever.
Finally, I don’t know why some people are deriding this as nanny stateism or needless govt involvement. While new legislation seems superfluous to me, I certainly think its appropriate to penalize these jackasses who casually endanger me and my family for their petty social convenience. Protecting me from the reckless actions of others – a good thing. Nanny-stateism — protecting someone from their own actions is different.
reep/32; irony is the membrane between man and nature. harumpf.
For those who didn’t save ‘em handy last time, here’s the contact points for your reprobates er, representatives:
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/11993-A-timely-repost-Take-a-minute-today-to-send-a-few-emails-to-let-your-servants-in-government-know-what-you-think..html
Are you beginning to reconsider your position, Life of the Mind?
Because you are out argued, out thought, out researched, and it is time for you to punt.
By the way, I like you a lot.
Jamie Irons and Bob – I’ve got a son at Berkeley who is a poet, majoring in English. Perhaps all is not lost. He writes that
Hope- It’s like writing in cursive
Never lifting the pen from the surface
Until there are ‘I’s to dot
and ‘T’s to cross
and your patience gives you purpose
Just a fragment of one of his many poems. He’s got a cellphone and knows how to text, but he’d rather look out his window on Piedmont and write about the tree across the street. By the way, I take no credit for my kids, and accept no blame!
Cursed be cursive
I’ll bang away
At the keyboard
And try to remember in my mind
What it was like to sign my name
—
God Almighty–Berkeley? That’s tough, I had a cousin there once, and a sis in Oakland.
They got out.
ancient man comunicated with self, others and nature, seeking higher meaning and a higher power, through things like meditation and that inner voice,
some have said ancient man heard that inner voice and beleived it to be a connection to the gods, not just intuition, and then there is the actual beleif that they are comunicating with god,
when we as a species have reached the point of mental clutter and continual artificial connection with the nonstop acompanying noise,
will we have an even harder time staying grounded, or spiritual or having intuition?
42 Susan; it used to be said that at Berkeley they taught the Humanities like Sciences. My Honors thesis was Linguistic analysis of the wonderful poetry of Frank O’Hara. It was still wonderful after I got done with it. God bless your son, may he keep his wits about him at a place where many have lost theirs.
25 Bob Smith; “angry studies” LOL!
Any diminution of freedom which occurs on the watch of Barack and the Obamanauts is a feature, not a bug.
Luddy at 40:
The sense of irony is simply the recognition that mankind can do nothing of itself, though it claims to do something. As Solomon explains, after describing his many great works:
“Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.” (Ecc 2:11)
All mankind can do of its own power is subject to entropy: though mankind may claim something of its own making is great, in the end it will decay into utter meaninglessness. That is the root of irony.
Many states are already addressing this problem by simply making it illegal and assessing fines if caught. The feds can go back to their regularly scheduled socialist power grab.
What? This was only a distraction from the health care push-back? Oh. Never mind.
Gosh…another awesome thread at BC (they’re lining up like sparrows on a wire lately).
Wretchard @# 4
Yup. We can add “summit” to “war,” “poverty,” “love,” “hate,” and a host of other, once-profound words that are now just empty husks. The words that mediate both our interpersonal, national and foreign affairs (ie. the lexicons thru which we conduct our essential diplomacies) are eroding fast.
It almost brings a tear to my eye.
Kirsten @#7
I think Jamie’s probably got the better handle on this. Still, I’ll have a go:
The simple arithmetic function describing a direct proportionality such as you describe is X=C*Y, where X is “expanding government” and Y is “inanity.” C is the constant of proportionality. Just call it “The Kirsten Constant,” then make up a name for a calibrated unit of it (I suggest the “Goron”), and you’ve got your mathematical relationship.
If you can measure both X and Y over time, then C is easy to calculate. Problem is, in America’s “Information Age” politics, dividing X by Y (ie. expanding government/inanity) will yield a fluctuating value over time, so you’ll need to adjust for that. And, it may be there are three or four factors in play, not just two.
Still, whether your constant of proportionality is a firm datum or not, correlating social phenomena, like technological innovations, media concerts, and economic bubbles, with observed Goronic oscillations in this “Kirsten’s Constant” might stimulate some very interesting after-dinner discussions.
Aaron @#20, TW in OC@22,
I agree. A mix of feigned importance and effective social avoidance; both dysfunctional and off-putting, that’s the vibe I get from habitual texter/cellers. I’m convinced these are the social benefits sought by habitual adolescent users, they can “hide” in their phone, IPod, or whatsit. That said, a thumb-able global language appears to be developing, and texting is this innovation’s main driver. I don’t want to burn down Babel.
Back to the legislation: Still, for ‘safety’s sake,’ it should extend to other public arenas like sidewalks, subway stations and the Post Office.
Here’s why. The other day I watched a young man wearing earphones and sunglasses engaging in “walking -while-texting,” step stupidly in front of oncoming traffic. From where I sat at a side street stop-sign, it was obvious that this man was completely oblivious to the world around him.
In nature, animals who act this way usually live very, very short lives. His defensive senses capped, muffled and distracted by high-tech gadgetry, this American teen acted all the world as if he had a bot-fly in his brain as he navigated urbanity’s equivalent of the Serenghetti, its bustling city streets. Something, either a jaguar or a mack truck or, worse, a Scientologist with a “personality test,” usually gets the lamed ones pretty quick-like.
In the end, traffic screeched to a halt just in time, and the fellow jumped safely back onto the curb.
I suppose that, if the dangers of driving while using technologies need to be addressed in congress, then the easy solution would be to to legislatively toss the problem to private drivers’ insurance companies to handle. A “hands-free” credit, or a “Cell&Text-Free” premium reimbursement shouldn’t be hard to craft.
Progressive? AllState? Farmers Insurance? Are you all up to the challenge?
-Steve
Its all just “rent-seeking” behavior on the part of the political class. We should give up the notion of punishing people for what they MIGHT do, such as texting while driving resulting in an accident, and concentrate on what they actually do–the consequences to others. Some people can talk on a cell phone and it doesn’t materially detract from their ability to drive–many others can’t. Driving while intoxicated or driving while texting isn’t really the problem—driving while it exceeds the current limits of your brain is.
And why should we cut any slack to the ditzy chick who causes a wreck because she was weaving around in her lane because she was so involved in her cellphone conversation? People should be punished by the harm that they do, not by the category that someone who majored in Sociology wants to place them in.
It seems to me the deadly dance
Of texting while in drive
Is playing with the odds on chance
That you won’t be alive
To get a message back from whom
You sent the message to
For you in your vehicle tomb
Are slowly turning blue
Of course we know the IQ score
Of those who text en route
Is in the rank of fair to poor
And Democrat to boot
So blame it on yo lefty mama
When you’re a median jumper
We know you by your big Obama
Sticker on your bumper
The other day I watched a young man wearing earphones and sunglasses engaging in “walking -while-texting,” step stupidly in front of oncoming traffic. From where I sat at a side street stop-sign, it was obvious that this man was completely oblivious to the world around him.
Yeah–such people are prime candidates for being dropped-kicked out of the gene pool.
reep/46; That is the root of irony …and it’ll surely crush anyone who bites into the apple and then don’t at least try to ‘leap of faith’ out of the way of it.
Write an app that would use the GPS function to disable the texting if the unit is moving faster than 5 mph while in close proximity to any road.
#14 TW I have noticed the same thing. And back around Christmas I took my Mom up to the mall and we were walking toward the stores when an attractive woman drove through the crowd of shoppers, one hand holding her phone to her ear and another hand brushing her hair. Now, class, that leaves how many hands on the wheel as she zips by the nearby pedestrians?
Is it possible that ladies are already doing so many things while driving, makeup, hair, noticing other makeup and hair, that the cellphone represents the final overload?
One thing I wonder, though. I am an amateur radio operator and a private pilot. Driving and flying while talking on the radio is common in those hobbies, but I have never heard of any reports of increased accidents. Of course, both of those hobbies require training, tests, and licenses, so perhaps that tends to weed out some of the problem cases.
In regards to comment #51–
How I became tcobbt is a mystery to me.
Jim Nicholas @ 33:
I read somewhere a long time ago that it was associated with talking on the phone. There is direct statistical evidence to show it so. I cannot find the reference, sorry.
Common sense dictates that using both hands for a activity that demands both hands will have an affect on the other activity. D’Oh!
Poole #53: By the way I heard where one lawmaker is proposing to make it illegal to use a touch screen GPS unit while driving.
The ultimate case of “fixing by forbidding” I can recall was a proposed law in Maryland in the early 90’s. They wanted to make it illegal to sell cups of ice. It seems that people were buying cups of ice and then pouring in their favorite hard liquor adult beverage to enjoy while they drove. It was noted that such people were involved in an unusually high percentage of accidents, so the idea was to outlaw cups of ice. Drinking while driving was already illegal so they were going to outlaw the ice in an attempt to stop it. The reality is that they were unwilling to prosecute the people who drove while drunk – one suspects that in Maryland it would have resulted in a racially incorrect percentage of prosecutions – so they were going to outlaw ice.
Instead of outlawing texting or talking, how about a law that makes the cellphone records of people involved in accidents immediately available to both all parties involved and the law enforcement authorities?
Susan (Ochoa) (#42),
Best of luck to your son! Berkeley has produced and sheltered a number of fine poets, including the (late) great Czesław Miłosz (not “produced” in Berkeley, of course, but sheltered there for many years).
Jamie Irons
More excuses to further control us.
My father knew a guy who like to play harmonica while driving, he’ld steer with his knees.
“They wanted to make it illegal to sell cups of ice. It seems that people were buying cups of ice and then pouring in their favorite hard liquor adult beverage to enjoy while they drove. ”
I guess a cup of ice is “hard liquor paraphenelia.”
Has the administration already had its Summit on Cow Farts and the Environment?
Voice recognition is the obvious upgrade from texting.
If you think it’s weird to see people texting all around you, wait til they start voicing.
How odd – voice-to-text via telephone beats old-fashioned talking on the telephone. Voice conversations are too slow, single-channel, distracting, annoying, voice-to-text, yes so nice and controlled, that’s all we need.
Who woulda thought it?
I have no cell phone, and don’t feel the need of any !
am I normal ?
though I wouldn’t renounce to the net !
Easy; just make this part of the national health care plan.
Smoke signals is best.
50. Walt:
You’ve outdone yourself yet again.
Indian Post Office
High up in the mountains on the Lolo Trail going over into Montana and the buffalo grounds was a place called now Indian Post Office where they’d leave messages for one another in the kind of simple code they used in that day.
This is a spot along the Lolo Trail, a trail that the Nez Perce Indians traveled from eastern Washington and Idaho to the Buffalo hunting grounds in Montana.
#13 TonyB made an interesting comment concerning his daughter’s texting. But aren’t most adolescent’s text messages just variations of omgdhst?, twdys?, and wdysyshw? If so, his daughter only sends three or so text messages a month, but each one goes out about a thousand times.
[ohmygoddidhesaythat? thenwhatdidyousay? whodidyousayyousawherwith?]
When the Nez Perce went over into Montana they’d almost always get in a fight with the Blackfeet. They didn’t like one another.
‘This is our place, our buffalo, stay out.’
the Lolo Trail damn near did Lewis & Clark in. They hit it in a bad time, iirc. mud or snow, one of the two, iirc. Then some unfriendlies.
The first sighting of the whites by the local reds here seems to have been up on the Camus Prairie somewhere.
There is a tale, don’t know if it is true, that the reds had a meeting–should we kill them, or not–and decided not to, they let the whites pass.
And actually helped them out in many ways, keeping some ponies and supplies at Asotin.
When Lewis and Clark came back from the Pacific, they happened on upillissptts or whatever his name was, with a necklace of scalps around his neck, back from a trip to Shoshone country, down to the south.
It was the wild west.
And yet, they were very civilized in a way. They had the rivers divided up into family fishing holes, for instance, passed down. The salmon and the steelhead, wave after wave, migrating up the rivers, keeping them going, wave after wave, summer, spring and fall.
Not a bad life, taken all in all.
And they traded with the coast Indians at the Dalles. At the Dalles, all the Indian tribes met to trade.
They just didn’t have legal deeds, like we have.
They are now taking us to the cleaners at the Clearwater River Casino.
Russian Subs Patrol off East Coast of US
Everything old is new again, only we are far far less ready now then we were in the past.
We should build a CVN every 15 months for the next 8 years.
We should build a LHA/LHD every 12 months for the next 6 years.
We should build 500 F-22 fighters and 5,000 F-35 fighter/bombers.
We should have on active duty 30 combat ready army brigades and 7 marine brigades.
We should revitalize our Reserve and Guard centers to make them the core of each communities Homeland Security and disaster recovery plans.
Bob and “luddy”* –
Have either of you read Bernard DeVoto’s wonderful “Aross the Wide Missouri”?
Jamie Irons
*BTW, RUTBWBSMC?
(By the way, are you the barsen who’s been stealing my chickens?)
Jamie Irons,
If you are implying that USMC has something to do with Molester of Chickens then things could get exciting around here. I wasn’t in the Corps. I was assigned to be the fellow standing on the raised platform at the back of the LCM or LCU with a machine gun to encourage them to get out quick if we ever did an opposed beach landing. Almost always liked being a JO on an amphib. Marines are a courteous well educated group and after a game of cards they pay up with a smile.
Yes I worked for the Bureau of Acronyms and Abbreviations. How did you guess?
Did you think that weapon was just for shooting at the enemy on the beach?
Across the Wide Missouri
No I hadn’t, but will sure look into it.
Across the Wide Missouri by Bob Dylan
…and by Anna-Sophia Henry
and by Celtic Woman.
***
Celtic Woman, Mo Ghile Mear (headphones, loud)
i did NOT steal that chicken, Miss Lewinsky.
and also and i promise i won’t never do it again.
OT, but I can’t resist:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=4020
(BTW, on BC, the comment area does not retain my name or email in between postings? Has anyone else seen this? Tips anyone?)
The USMC has been compared to Israel:
1) They are small. but determined.
2) They do not take their existence for granted.
3) Everyone pitches in.
(well one wonders about #3 these days as far as Israel goes.)
Captain Zero has not yet had the time to turn to the USMC. Look for him to try to gut it and in some underhanded way.
Perhaps the answer is a huge federal tax on each text message? To protect the children and help fund health care. BTW I can see part of the reason why Congress over regulates. Imagine being a rep/senator and coming down the Capitol steps after a hard day of expatiating on the issues. All of a sudden camera lights are blinding you and an info babe sticks a microphone in your face and says, ‘People are dying while text messaging. What are YOU going to do about it?” Well, if you are in Congress, what CAN you do other than throw money at it and create another agency? You can’t be perceived to be doing nothing.
MONGOOSE: The USMC is personally owned by the President of the United States and are required to do the POTUS’s bidding.
Obama will not screw around with his own private expeditionary Corps.
(ATTN: see G.)
a. Provide Fleet Marine Force with combined arms and supporting air components
for service with the United States Fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced
naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to
the execution of naval campaign.
b. Provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the
Navy and security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval
Stations and bases.
c. Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine,
tactics, techniques, and equipment employed by landing forces in amphibious
operations.
d. Provide Marine forces for airborne operations, in coordination with the Army,
Navy, and Air Force, according to the doctrine established by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.
e. Develop, in coordination with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the doctrine,
procedures, and equipment for airborne operations.
f. Expand peacetime components to meet wartime needs according to the joint
mobilization plans.
g. Perform such other duties as the President may direct.
“”"”I just don’t understand why existing local traffic laws wouldn’t allow police to ticket drivers today under some sort of reckless driving rule. Proactively — not after an accident has already occurred. If that isn’t possible or legal, then fine, legislate it, federal, state, whatever. “”"”"
We appear to have abandoned the concept of common law. I find myself flabbergasted when authroties confronted by a new twist on old transgressions scratch their heads in confusion and declare, “we don’t have a law to cover that,” when in actuality they do. Some years ago there was a scandal in Georgia where a crematorium was not cremating bodies, and these were found strewn all over the property. The authorities had no idea what to bust the crematorium proprietors for. I did an informal quiz among friends and acquaintances to see what they though would be the appropriate statutes to cover the very obvious crime. The universal answer — and I’m not making this up — was “breach of contract.” A second opinion was “grave desecration,” and a third was “depraved indifference.”
The fact that ordinary citizens could come up with logical answers immediately while the authorities couldn’t even decide if it was a crime despite its obvious awfullness, and thus stood paralyzed, is not very reassuring. They eventually busted the crematorium, once they figured out what regular folks already knew to charge them with.
We have a local fireworks festival attended by hundreds of thousands. After the end of a recent show, I was walking away with the crowd along the maybe ten foot seawall and towards us comes a smaller crowd with a young man texting, seemingly oblivious to what is coming his way. Not being as verbal as the youngsters, I gave him a healthy shoulder bump but maybe the answer is to invent a device that allows you to point and send a “text this…!” message?
trupeers,
At work the other day we were waiting for vans when one of us stepped over to answer a question from a motorist waiting at a light. One of the other employees, a guy who is not a chronological child but who likes to show off and prove what a big deal he is to impress the younger set, runs over and yanks on the rear door and then runs back to the curb laughing. I was visibly pissed and one of the kids gave me the “chill out, no big deal, none of your business” look. My instinctive or trained by my parents reaction was to think that if someone in the car had reacted by pulling a weapon then the jerk had placed myself and others in danger.
Later I was sharing with someone the point made on the Club that the Cash for Clunkers is a tax on poor people in that it subsidizes the upper middle class and removes used cars from the market that could be desired by working class drivers. The replies I got were “Most people are Middle Class” and “Poorer people shouldn’t be driving anyway. They can’t afford the gas and insurance.” Most of them didn’t even know that the cars were being destroyed and that it had been sold as a carbon footprint policy but they were determined to approve of anything that the Republicans disliked. Their strongest motivation seems to be more negative then positive.
Civilized behavior, the conduct needed to live in the civitas begins with teaching children to always look around and consider, that is be considerate, of how their actions might effect others. When children learn to not run around and bump into people and to shut gates after they go through then they begin to become civilized. I have heard the Walkman™ called an “anti-social device’ because it trains people to ignore the human beings around them. The irony is that most of these self professed Socialists are profoundly egotistical and anti-social. They are Barbarians.
Some become Urbane and others merely Urban.
LOTM: The strange thing about those responses you have gotten is that a great many “non-middle class workers” rely on their cars for livelihoods (Note: I often hear the exact same thing out of liberals that you have). Many deliver goods or ferry people, often as a side job. A quick trip to the outer boroughs of NYC proves this.
When you walk into those trendy coffee shops in Manhattan and buy a muffin or pastry, odds are that these were made outside of Manhattan, and that firms that made then cannot afford a company van or a full time delivery person in order to bring the food into the city. They just pay someone to carry it in in the morning, often on their way to another job (or it could be a retired person supplementing their income). You can bet that the newspaper on your doorstep was delivered by someone early in the morning using their car, again as a side job to supplement income.
The only people that take public transportation are people commuting into the city. It not all that useful in getting around the other parts of the city. In NYC, the subway is a mostly trunk system to get people in and out of Manhattan.
Yuppies going into Manhattan for their jobs can take the subway. not the guy out in queens that has to commute to lower Brooklyn. And they have cars too, newer cars.
People who give these stupid responses have no idea how the real world works. It is particularly vexing in NYC as they literally cannot understand what is going on underneath their noses. Wait until their roll costs $20.
This brings up another local pet peeve of mine: By restricting traffic in the parks in the outer borough, they deprive a lot of working people of the chance to drive through some greenery on the way home. The yuppies live next to the parks. It is really inconsiderate, particularly since the yuppies are not even home yet. THey would still have plenty of time for crusing around on their mountain bikes.
Whenever you break these things down, there is almost always the worst sort of condescending class bias behind it, and real contempt for the people that these folk purport to be so concerned about. It is all moral vanity.
LOTM, Mongoose,
Reflecting a little more, I think what bothered me so much about that kid is that people in front of me were weaving around him and still he didn’t look up from his phone. That takes more than inconsiderateness, it is some kind of faith in one’s holiness, though it wouldn’t be understood by him quite as such.
A local columnist last week wrote about the AGW-denier, Ian Plimer, and the paper has since been full of letters shocked, pro and con, by this appearance of heresy in the MSM. Today, the columnist, Jonathan Manthorpe, discusses his mail bag:
There was too a healthy crop of letters from scientists who, while quarreling with some of Plimer’s arguments, basically agree with him that the Earth warms and cools in natural cycles, and that human activities have little or no impact on these changes.
But the disturbing letters were from the scientist believers in man-man global warming.
I have met a lot of unpleasant people in the course of my life, but I have never seen such a torrent of nasty, arrogant and downright stupid abuse as has been aimed at me this week by people who aggressively sign themselves “PhD” as though it were a mark of divine right that is beyond challenge or question.
If a man can be judged by the character of his enemies, the letters I have received from scientists this week has significantly raised Plimer in my estimation.
“Cash for clunkers” makes no sense – it surely creates a greater carbon footprint – unless one is part of an anti-human, anti-plebe, religion, as apparently practised by Manthorpe’s letter writers.
truepeers,
Sorry for the typo on your name.
Manthrope? Now there is a name that Ben Jonson would have loved.
Mongoose,
The yutes are not concerned about the economy. The intend to hide out in Graduate School for a few years. Problem solved.
OT Rush is defending his rejection of McCain. He’s wrong. McCain sent out a tweet, “Town hall meetings are an American tradition – we should allow everyone to express their views without disruption – even if we disagree!” That helps, we need leaders who will confront authoritarian Illiberalism from the Left.
Manthrope? for a man who types “man-man global warming”!
truepeers,
NTTAWWT
I have heard the Walkman™ called an “anti-social device’ because it trains people to ignore the human beings around them. The irony is that most of these self professed Socialists are profoundly egotistical and anti-social. They are Barbarians.
The plain fact is that ideology is usually an illusion. Most people at the top of the political pyramid are there because they crave money, power, or adulation. The ideology they espouse is just the horse they ride to get to the destination. If it dies along the journey it can be replaced, and it frequently is.
For those at the bottom of the pyramid ideology tends to be nothing more than a fashion statement. You adopt the slogans of your peers because thats the “kewl” thing to do. Most people, for example, couldn’t tell you the basic tenets of communism, and a large number of US citizens have no idea as to the identity of the Congressman from “their” district.
For the most part Americans have tended to care little for national politics, mainly because (other than wars) what went on at the national level usually had very little impact on the average person’s life. But now that is changing, and very rapidly. Most people tend to care about their own self-interests. And as a cultural trait, Americans tend to dislike other people who think they have a right to micro-manage their lives.
In the past, the “culture wars” have tended to resemble the “Cold War,” but with recent developments the political class has declared open war on the average American, the people at the bottom of the pyramid.
I think that they shall regret this. As the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Trivializing the Presidency down.
Long live the infantile nanny state!
Whatever anyone says about countries where voting is withheld from women, they can’t say they’re nanny states.
Women and cell phones are the dawn of the Borg.
5. Lifeofthemind:
KIndly old Professor T understood that Wisdom came from understanding yourself first sufficiently
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools [a] despise wisdom and discipline. (Prov. 1:7). NIV
Mongoose@79: (BTW, on BC, the comment area does not retain my name or email in between postings? Has anyone else seen this? Tips anyone?)
Yeah. It’s been noticed. Someone with a dark cast of mind might note that over the weekend, BC opened a thread which very likely would have motivated a discussion of manipulations and distortions in official documents and announcements underlying the Administration’s August-September campaign to pass Obama’s Congressional agenda and make him golden in the polls again. Rather early in the thread, this site went bonkers in a way that fell short of denial of service but still effectively deterred serious discussion. A suspicious mind might have noticed that the problem seems to have been fixed shortly after thread was closed. In the context of that experience, the change you noticed appears to be a preventive measure.
truepeers@87: But the disturbing letters were from the scientist believers in man-man global warming. I have met a lot of unpleasant people in the course of my life, but I have never seen such a torrent of nasty, arrogant and downright stupid abuse as has been aimed at me this week by people who aggressively sign themselves “PhD” as though it were a mark of divine right that is beyond challenge or question.
It’s easier to understand if you realize that global warming is, whatever else it may be, a massive jobs program for academics. When you threaten the basis for a man’s livelihood you should not be surprised if he turns mean.
This is the second time I have had a comment accepted without a time delay for corrections. The last paragraph in 96 should not be in italics.
When you threaten the basis for a man’s livelihood you should not be surprised if he turns mean.
-true, but even in a decadent world such as ours, are you not more likely to protect your interests when you don’t come off all hysterical but rather fight with best available reason? I’m reminded of Churchill, when criticized for his polite note to the Japanese ambassador declaring war: “If you have to kill a man, you might as well be polite about it.” I think the dogmatic AGW scientists are going to ruin the public trust in science and that can’t be good for them in the long run, considering that there will always be many questions of science that can and will be supported if we believe in the process. So it’s not clear that scientists need a religious dogma to defend their interests, though perhaps this is the likely default outcome of a scene on which scientific funding comes largely from government and scientists need to form large teams around leaders with fashionable research agenda in order to claim a piece of the pie.
but even in a decadent world such as ours, are you not more likely to protect your interests when you don’t come off all hysterical but rather fight with best available reason?
With all due respect, you just don’t get it. Its all about the conclusion, which is pre-ordained. If the science doesn’t support the conclusion, you shout down the people who spout out the science, and you give grant money to all the little whores who would agree that rocks fall up rather than down if dropped, (so long as the grant money keeps coming in).
TC, you may describe, roughly, the present reality, but my point is that I doubt it’s sustainable, even in our decadent culture. If enough politically-active people “just don’t get it” that becomes a liability for the scientists in an open-ended democracy. Whatever their fantasy, they cannot build the perfect tyranny. Some of us still expect science to be circumspect and pragmatic and results oriented. Yes they are religiously shouting people down, but that looks bad where grey cells are still operating. Many scientists are offended by the religion and so the ethical reality of our shared situation cannot be just what the dogmatic religion wants it to be.
You write above: The plain fact is that ideology is usually an illusion. Most people at the top of the political pyramid are there because they crave money, power, or adulation. The ideology they espouse is just the horse they ride to get to the destination. If it dies along the journey it can be replaced, and it frequently is.
-frankly, this doesn’t make sense to me. How can we distinguish the desire for money, power, or adulation from ideology? Doesn’t the desire require an ideology to give it shape? Sure human desire is a constant, and ideologies change; but since I can follow an ideology that promotes ascetic desires, or that requires me to access money, power, and adulation only by following certain ethical (say Christian) principles, our choice of ideologies is bound to our choice of desires.
Animals have biological appetites; humans have desires – for money, power, adulation – which are something more than mere appetite. Our desires depend not simply or even largely on our natural drives, but on our ways of trading representations or symbols of what is desirable, sacred. And that trade is inherently ideological. If ideology is an illusion, then so is everything that is fundamentally human.
91. Tcobb:
I think that they shall regret this. As the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Not to mention that part about “a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
-frankly, this doesn’t make sense to me. How can we distinguish the desire for money, power, or adulation from ideology? Doesn’t the desire require an ideology to give it shape?
Maybe we’re going at cross purposes here, but my basic contention is that ideology is, 99% of the time, merely an excuse for doing that which you wish to do for purely selfish reasons. If (Bill Clinton/George Bush/Jimmy Carter–take your choice) had existed in the context of a (Nazi/Communist/Fascist–take your choice) type state–they STILL would have rose to the top. There are exceptions, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
In the final analysis, its what you ACTUALLY DO that matters, not the reasons you give for your actions. The reasons can always be revised as convenience has it, but what you have actually done can’t be changed–except on paper.
My intention is ‘in tension’ –could go either way. And be described however it fits my mission –it’s my verb. What I did tho, is ‘done’ –a piece of the real world, a fact, a landscape feature –it’s my noun.
yes, what you do matters, but the distinction between saying and doing breaks down when we consider how much the doing has to be set up and given meaning by the representations. And we are always acting in anticipation and negotiation of what we are doing is going to mean, not that anyone can control that.
“yes, what you do matters, but the distinction between saying and doing breaks down when we consider how much the doing has to be set up and given meaning by the representations.”
I disagree. Its all in the doing. Period. When you have a three year old child who has been intentionally shot in the head by people acting in the name of (social justice–whatever, you get to pick the label) I only see a dead child who was killed by a monster.
Ideology is so wonderful–it allows monsters to pretend that they are virtuous human beings. What a tool!
truepeers@98: but even in a decadent world such as ours, are you not more likely to protect your interests when you don’t come off all hysterical but rather fight with best available reason?
Keep in mind that you sampled only one self-selected population within the broader global warming scientific community. Each researcher focuses on a specific issue funded under the broad umbrella. Those who are engaged in solid activities of independent scientific value will usually discuss only their own specific research. Those who see GW as only a means to another good (revival of nuclear power, for example), likewise tend to be silent in public. In general working scientists prefer to avoid public fights over policy. They may recognize the umbrella program as a scam or not, but either way their focus will be on their own individual activities.
You encountered the frightened and fanatical, who dominate the public face of global warming research.
When you have a three year old child who has been intentionally shot in the head by people acting in the name of (social justice–whatever, you get to pick the label) I only see a dead child who was killed by a monster.
Ideology is so wonderful–it allows monsters to pretend that they are virtuous human beings. What a tool!
-it is precisely your awareness of the threat that other humans pose that is the source of human consciousness. And that’s something you can’t just turn off and say end of story, short of death. We are all tools of “ideology” and it is our tool. Only men, the distinctive creatures who trade meanings, can and must distinguish monsters and virtue; no such distinction exists in the animal world.
What is there to do, if you don’t already have the “idea” of what to do? What have you done if you don’t have a way to record or share the memory? Shit happens in nature, but that’s not “doing” as we understand it.
In general working scientists prefer to avoid public fights over policy. They may recognize the umbrella program as a scam or not, but either way their focus will be on their own individual activities.
You encountered the frightened and fanatical, who dominate the public face of global warming research.
-I think that must be right. Whatever the good or evil of the political players, the fact remains that there is a lot for us to learn about the climate and so it must be reasonable to many scientists that they just find a way to do a job, to do some good research, whatever the b.s. in the arguments used to attract funding or influence future policy. Still, we all must try to stand up to the fanatics from time to time if we have the long-term interests of our trade or democracy at heart.
In order to honor the pending summit on promiscuous texting and its infelicitous consequences, let us submit to Belmont our best offerings in lingua txta (“Textish”?) in the form of Haiku, or for the more mbshs, sonnets.
Can any think of appropriate prizes?
truepeers
There is a distinction between ideology and culture. Culture is behavior that, over time, demonstrably produces socially desirably results.
Ideology, by contrast, is some thing that people would LIKE to be true, but the data for evaluating it is not known or is ignored, because people REALLY would like it to be true.
My point was, all along, that many of the people who seek political power are essentially amoral predators. If its convenient for them to be a Nazi today, that’s what they will be. And if its convenient for them to be a communist tomorrow, that’s what they will be tomorrow. The ideology is nothing more than a mask for the monster that hides beneath it. It allows them to pretend to act for the common good when all they are doing is pursuing their own selfish interests.
And with that, I bid you good night.
Drudgereport.com has a link to a very brief clip of Nancy Pelosi making a breathtakingly vicious swipe at the town hall protesters.
A reporter asks Pelosi, “Do you think there’s a legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?”
Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge of [garbled] of carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care.”
Mind you this woman is the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
She must be telling the truth!
I would love to see the evidence of this.
One question: were the Swastika carriers supporting or opposing Obama’s Health Care Plan?
p.s. the link takes you to RealClear Politics…
Tcobb,
You’re right that I’ve been using the word “ideology” loosely, and no doubt there are some kinds of “ideology” that I too would work against, and I would promote a way of thinking that is not about building great metaphysical systems. But nonetheless, I don’t really know how to distinguish “ideology” from cultural preferences more generally, in daily life.
I also agree that a lot of people who desire power, wealth, etc., are often not particularly good people. But why can they manipulate us if not for the fact that they manipulate something we all inevitably need – shared ideas and trust. Human society depends on common ethical understandings and how can anyone’s distinction of necessary culture and fraudulent ideology be itself anything but a politically charged claim. I mean, if everyone agreed that ideology x was a lie promoted by a con man, then the con man wouldn’t be getting anywhere and it wouldn’t be a problem. We are fooled because human society can’t function well without shared trust, and it can’t function well without some people taking the lead in saying, look, this is our present reality and we need to address this problem, this imperative, by building a new or renewed ethic or trust relationship. At the start, we can’t always know whether we are being led towards truth or astray. We can’t dismiss all would-be leaders or we’d be lost. The trick is to build systems where we are not dependent on any one man, where a regular circulation of people “going first” occurs and where there is a good balance of powers.
The way you are distinguishing “ideology” seems to be retrospective, in terms of what has already been shown to work and what not. But we can’t make that distinction easily when we’re in the middle of things because in daily life truth is always working on two levels: there are truths that speak to the most highly-differentiated consciousness of learned human self-knowledge, i.e. truths that appeal to an anthropological and historical consciousness; and then there are truths that are pragmatically proven, that get people to do things, for a time, even if on some more fundamental level the people are being motivated by a lie. If a little violence gets a job done, is it a lie? How much is a little? After all, we can’t fall for the Utopian lie of a totally non-violent world.
Thus, we might agree that “communism” was a lie, thanks to our historical perspective. But in its time, “communism” was achieving things in turning peasants into modern industrialists who could build high-tech weapons, etc. Thus, we must now look at the death toll of communism and call it a lie, while recognizing that it could not have been so obvious a lie, say in the 1940s, because it was keeping people working together and helping them defeat their outside enemies.
I may know a truth, but if in sharing it with you, it pisses you off (because you naturally resent someone telling you what’s what and making your insights secondary to my lecture), then I fail on the level of pragmatic truth for we fail to get things done together. If I tell you a lie that appeals to your vanity, and we manage to get something done together, then the observer must recognize a pragmatic truth about humanity in my lie, even if he has access to a more fundamental truth about how my “lie” “only” fools, but for a time. But then any truth is always less than the full truth which we can never grasp but only ever work towards.