Call me an arch-conservative (go on - be the first!), but I don't like whining liberals who complain about the world & how so many wrongs need to be righted.
This is, fundamentally, a revenge mentality - there is a wrong, someone needs to be punished, & then "we" will feel better.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about law, politics, or sport, people think they have a right to retribution in matters that don't actually concern them or directly affect them.
Let's do this with examples.
Law.
Although I'm all for victim impact statements & assessments, let's limit the range of victim defined. Perhaps I should say that we could leave it in the hands of professional victim assessors, rather than broadcasting "Hey, who wants to be a victim here?"
In a murder, there is generally one victim. They are dead. That's a big impact, but nothing can be done to change that.
No parent can get their child back. No parent should expect blood money. I say "expect" intentionally. Society may punish the perpetrator in such a way that it "profits", & these funds should then be pushed towards ameliorating the grief associated with the victim's loss, definitely.
However, buying a new house doesn't count.
The old Gaelic concept (& I'm sure it existed elsewhere) of blood money was to compensate a family for the loss of a worker - in the same way that you would compensate if you'd killed someone's cow. This is no longer relevant to our society, but we keep acting as though it is.
Don't even get me started on the precedence principles in the legal profession - where once judgement was by the King, then by his representatives, & now must look as consistent as if that was still the case.
I doubt if HM feels it is like that now.
Politics.
In a recent Australian election - & it's not the first time I've heard it - voters "punished" the government due to their unhappiness with various aspects of its organisation or its policies.
In what way did "punishing" a political party improve the lot of those voters?
Regardless of the opposition's policies, voting with revenge in mind is stupid.
I'm not even going to continue with how the new government then systematically removed any public servant or office with the taint of their predecessors.
Government is meant to be the stability that rules the country & keeps it from dissolving into anarchy & chaos.
I believe that seeking revenge on the temporarily unpopular former ruling tribe can lead only to further retribution down the track.
Sport.
This story seems to have legs for so many reasons. When one football team lost a game "because" the referees failed to notice an infringement by the other team, all hell broke loose.
Someone had to be held responsible for the tragedy - remember, this is football.
So, who perpetrated the "crime"? Obviously, the side that infringed, right?
I doubt that the infringement was intentional, but it also reflects on the reliance by that team on the referee to ensure that they didn't infringe - that is, they weren't clever enough to self-monitor.
The team that lost didn't notice until after the game, & only then protested that they had lost because of the unnoticed infringement, & that someone had to be held to account.
This is football! It's entertainment for the masses! Do we really need to "punish" someone for not imposing the rules perfectly? Does there need to be revenge?
Do we need to hold someone ultimately responsible for what is, at the base level, a small number of men trying to keep two teams of bigger angrier men from killing each other by pointing out the limits to which they can apply their aggression?
28 September 2013
16 September 2013
Schrodinger & the Numbers Game
A few things have popped into my head recently, & I've managed to put them together - diets, election platforms, & rugby league. Stay with me on this.
I believe that people (humanity) will focus on concrete things to try to corral the abstract. This is obvious pattern-matching behaviour which was wonderful when survival was a day-to-day struggle, but not so helpful now when we have a lot more structure in our existence - culturally & environmentally.
Case number 1: dieting.
Everyone "knows" that a lower calorie diet will help you lose weight. In general, this is true. For most people this is almost a given. For some, it just isn't.
Some seemingly low calorie foods just stop some people from losing weight due to biochemical interactions that make them store fat regardless, or don't let them burn it off - without going to extreme measures like starvation.
On the surface, this makes sense. However, if you play the numbers game - low calorie = weight loss - then you can quickly get to the point of "if I eat less meat, I can have a chocolate", which is probably not good, because the essential fats & proteins in meat is good for you (in small doses), but the chocolate isn't.
Same calories. Different outcome. No weight loss.
Don't play the calories. Look at the bigger (fatter) picture.
Case number 2: political campaigning.
Although it was riotously funny to hear Australia's Liberal Party claim that their platform was to "stop the boats" (boats of asylum seekers arriving via Indonesia) in a state election on the other side of the country (in NSW), having it echoed on a national level was no surprise - unless you noticed the opinion polls which suggested that almost no-one cared about that issue.
Because the Liberal Party had the platform, they made a case for it being on the agenda. You can't argue against something that doesn't exist. The policy stood. The party got kudos (without explaining how boats would be stopped).
Overall, nothing much changes.
The policy was irrelevant, but the electorate fell for it because the Liberal Party seemed so sure of themselves that it was important, therefore it must be. The Labor party did not make any such claims in their platform.
The Liberals played the numbers & won.
Case number 3: rugby league.
With finals afoot, every match becomes sudden death, & a bad refereeing decision can be a season-ender. Thus it has happened, unfortunately to a team two years in a row. The followed the rules - played the numbers - but the referee didn't. They should have won.
Rather, they should have been concentrating on the game, which they lost.
The referee is there to impose the rules. There is a common understanding of those rules between the teams & officials. It is for the officials to interpret them.
If they make a mistake, then it's between them & their higher powers - & no-one else.
Rules are there to minimise the chaos, & there is rarely divine retribution when a rule within a game is not followed - in fact, they have a whole set of rules around how to interpret breaking the rules - called penalties.
Look at the scoreboard. Suck it up, losers. Maybe next year.
Oops - the Schrodinger reference ... if you stop worrying about the cat, it won't enter into your head that it's probably dead. Get on with your life.
I believe that people (humanity) will focus on concrete things to try to corral the abstract. This is obvious pattern-matching behaviour which was wonderful when survival was a day-to-day struggle, but not so helpful now when we have a lot more structure in our existence - culturally & environmentally.
Case number 1: dieting.
Everyone "knows" that a lower calorie diet will help you lose weight. In general, this is true. For most people this is almost a given. For some, it just isn't.
Some seemingly low calorie foods just stop some people from losing weight due to biochemical interactions that make them store fat regardless, or don't let them burn it off - without going to extreme measures like starvation.
On the surface, this makes sense. However, if you play the numbers game - low calorie = weight loss - then you can quickly get to the point of "if I eat less meat, I can have a chocolate", which is probably not good, because the essential fats & proteins in meat is good for you (in small doses), but the chocolate isn't.
Same calories. Different outcome. No weight loss.
Don't play the calories. Look at the bigger (fatter) picture.
Case number 2: political campaigning.
Although it was riotously funny to hear Australia's Liberal Party claim that their platform was to "stop the boats" (boats of asylum seekers arriving via Indonesia) in a state election on the other side of the country (in NSW), having it echoed on a national level was no surprise - unless you noticed the opinion polls which suggested that almost no-one cared about that issue.
Because the Liberal Party had the platform, they made a case for it being on the agenda. You can't argue against something that doesn't exist. The policy stood. The party got kudos (without explaining how boats would be stopped).
Overall, nothing much changes.
The policy was irrelevant, but the electorate fell for it because the Liberal Party seemed so sure of themselves that it was important, therefore it must be. The Labor party did not make any such claims in their platform.
The Liberals played the numbers & won.
Case number 3: rugby league.
With finals afoot, every match becomes sudden death, & a bad refereeing decision can be a season-ender. Thus it has happened, unfortunately to a team two years in a row. The followed the rules - played the numbers - but the referee didn't. They should have won.
Rather, they should have been concentrating on the game, which they lost.
The referee is there to impose the rules. There is a common understanding of those rules between the teams & officials. It is for the officials to interpret them.
If they make a mistake, then it's between them & their higher powers - & no-one else.
Rules are there to minimise the chaos, & there is rarely divine retribution when a rule within a game is not followed - in fact, they have a whole set of rules around how to interpret breaking the rules - called penalties.
Look at the scoreboard. Suck it up, losers. Maybe next year.
Oops - the Schrodinger reference ... if you stop worrying about the cat, it won't enter into your head that it's probably dead. Get on with your life.
08 September 2013
Let Me Get This Straight
I was already totally over the idea of voting a week ago, & wanted my old favourite ads back on TV, but as it came closer to the day I was expected to tramp up to the community centre to prove I hadn't died since the last such event, I got to thinking about democracy (as you do).
A certain proportion of the people (hopefully more than half, even if indirectly) will get their wish & the people they support will get the chance to have the policies of the political party they (not the voters) belong to be presented before a parliament which also contains representatives of the lesser portion of the population (those representatives also mostly belonging to a political party that their supporters do not).
The object of the game is that those who have the majority can simply say "this is what we'll do", & those who don't say "I wish you wouldn't, but there's nothing I can do about it", & this goes on for a few years, & then the roles might reverse.
Sure, there's a lot more bitching & moaning, kicking & screaming, & other pre-schooler-esque entertainments along the way, all being televised to the bemused or frustrated populace by those who are now simply reporters (there are so few journalists left), scrambling to be "first" with the news that everyone read on Twitter hours before.
Fortunately, this process (electioneering, at least), only consumes a month or two, & we can get back to complaining about all politicians, rather than trying to defend some favoured ones as simply being misunderstood.
Life goes on. Democracy drains the energy of the soul & the public purse. Nothing really changes (except for the relative position of caricatures in cartoons).
It's interesting how much you can glean about a process that you've lost interest in. The only alternative is a radical shake up of the system; & let's face it, if there's one thing the voters don't like, it's actual change.
A certain proportion of the people (hopefully more than half, even if indirectly) will get their wish & the people they support will get the chance to have the policies of the political party they (not the voters) belong to be presented before a parliament which also contains representatives of the lesser portion of the population (those representatives also mostly belonging to a political party that their supporters do not).
The object of the game is that those who have the majority can simply say "this is what we'll do", & those who don't say "I wish you wouldn't, but there's nothing I can do about it", & this goes on for a few years, & then the roles might reverse.
Sure, there's a lot more bitching & moaning, kicking & screaming, & other pre-schooler-esque entertainments along the way, all being televised to the bemused or frustrated populace by those who are now simply reporters (there are so few journalists left), scrambling to be "first" with the news that everyone read on Twitter hours before.
Fortunately, this process (electioneering, at least), only consumes a month or two, & we can get back to complaining about all politicians, rather than trying to defend some favoured ones as simply being misunderstood.
Life goes on. Democracy drains the energy of the soul & the public purse. Nothing really changes (except for the relative position of caricatures in cartoons).
It's interesting how much you can glean about a process that you've lost interest in. The only alternative is a radical shake up of the system; & let's face it, if there's one thing the voters don't like, it's actual change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)