Sonnet 30 ("When to the sessions of sweet silent thought") -- William Shakespeare

 

When to the sessions of sweet silent thought

I summon up remembrance of things past,

I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought,

And with old woes new wail my dear time's waste:

Then can I drown an eye, unus'd to flow,

For precious friends hid in death's dateless night,

And weep afresh love's long since cancell'd woe,

And moan th' expense of many a vanish'd sight;

Then can I grieve at grievances foregone,

And heavily from woe to woe tell o'er

The sad account of fore-bemoaned moan,

Which I new pay as if not paid before.

But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,

All losses are restor'd, and sorrows end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Funny Valentine -- Anita O'Day (1965)

"Yes, as a matter of fact I am going to wear white gloves and a feathered hat to the Newport Jazz Festival."

My funny valentine
Sweet comic valentine
You make me smile with my heart
Your looks are laughable
Unphotographable
Yet you're my favorite work of art

Is your Figure less than Greek?
Is your mouth a little week?
When you open it to speak
Are you smart?

But don't change your hair for me
Not if you care for me
Stay little valentine stay
Each day is Valentines day

Is your figure less than Greek
Is your mouth a little weak
When you open it to Speak
Are you smart

But don't change your hair for me
Not if you care for me
Stay little valentine stay
Each day is valentines day

Why reporters get it wrong

A "Nazi-style" rally at a "moderate" Palestinian university, November 5, 2013.

An important essay by Matti Friedman, explicitly about news coverage of Israel. However, the dynamics described apply to all news coverage from anywhere and on any topic. The article should be read in full, but excerpts are below:

The Atlantic

"To make sense of most international journalism from Israel, it is important first to understand that the news tells us far less about Israel than about the people writing the news. Journalistic decisions are made by people who exist in a particular social milieu, one which, like most social groups, involves a certain uniformity of attitude, behavior, and even dress (the fashion these days, for those interested, is less vests with unnecessary pockets than shirts with unnecessary buttons). These people know each other, meet regularly, exchange information, and closely watch one another’s work. This helps explain why a reader looking at articles written by the half-dozen biggest news providers in the region on a particular day will find that though the pieces are composed and edited by completely different people and organizations, they tend to tell the same story.

...

In these circles, in my experience, a distaste for Israel has come to be something between an acceptable prejudice and a prerequisite for entry. I don’t mean a critical approach to Israeli policies or to the ham-fisted government currently in charge in this country, but a belief that to some extent the Jews of Israel are a symbol of the world’s ills, particularly those connected to nationalism, militarism, colonialism, and racism—an idea quickly becoming one of the central elements of the “progressive” Western zeitgeist, spreading from the European left to American college campuses and intellectuals, including journalists. In this social group, this sentiment is translated into editorial decisions made by individual reporters and editors covering Israel, and this, in turn, gives such thinking the means of mass self-replication."  

Did Stonewall Jackson have Asperger's?

 

I am a fan of these psycho-historical posthumous psychiatric diagnostic exercises, if only because they put so many people's noses out of joint. This one was written by Michael Fitzgerald and is titled, "Did 'Stonewall' Jackson have Asperger's Syndrome or Disorder?"


Society of Clinical Psychiatrists

"In 1944, the Austrian Hans Asperger described a number of children mainly boys who were socially odd, egocentric and who had circumscribed interests in specific topics Asperger (1944). He called this autistic psychopathy. Later Wing (1981) refined the syndrome and called it Asperger's syndrome. Later Szatmari et al. (1989) outlined specific criteria for the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. The American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1994) also set out criteria for Asperger's disorder. Both (Szatmari et al., 1989; APA, 1994) these criteria will be used in attempting to establish whether 'Stonewall' Jackson, possibly the greatest military leader in the American Civil War, had Asperger's syndrome or disorder.

In defining Asperger's syndrome Szatmari et al. (1989) in their first two criteria for Asperger's syndrome, emphasised solitary activities and social relationship problems. It is clear that 'Stonewall' Jackson met these criteria and the evidence will now be presented. During the American Civil War his nephew Henry Kyd Douglas (1947) was with him during the campaign and he described how "the General always kept himself always very much apart . . . and he did not encourage social calls". It was not thought by those who knew him best that he was a good judge of character (Douglas, 1947). Douglas (1947) described him as "hard as nails in the performance of a duty. I never knew him to temper justice with mercy; his very words very merciless. I can recall no case when he remitted or modified a punishment that he believed to be just and according to the law . . . He was governed by his judgment alone, by his strict construction of his sense of duty, by the demands of the public service. There was no place for sentiment or pity. In the execution of the law he was inexorable, justice and mercy seemed out of place". Douglas (1947) describes how at Law School he was regarded as "such an oddity" and a classmate of his said that "old Jack is a character, genius, or just a little crazy" and that he "lives quietly and don't meddle". Douglas (1947) points out that on one occasion a soldier wanted to visit his wife before she died and he said to the man "man, man, do you love your wife more than your country?" and turned away. The man never forgave him.

His problem in social relationships was also seen when he was posted in Florida and he made allegations of immoral behaviour against his commanding officer Major French. Henry (1979) stated that here Jackson showed his "implacable and vindictive characteristics and indeed his attack of French was pitiless, narrow minded and legalistic".

As a teacher at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington he was "an appallingly bad teacher and extremely unpopular with his students. The cadets considered him a strange character, grim, aloof, unable to communicate with them in or outside the classroom, who subjected them to a petty and relentless discipline" according to Henry (1979). Jackson was known there as "old Hickory" and indeed according to Henry (1979) the authorities made an unsuccessful attempt to remove him from his job. Locally the people of Lexington "considered him to be one of their local eccentrics, but despite his shyness and odd ways" he was respected by members of his Church (Henry, 1979). People considered his appearance odd "and this, combined with his reserve and awkwardness in company, made him the object of many jokes and derisive comments" and he was regarded as having a "shy, introverted and secretive personality" (Henry, 1979).

He therefore meets all the criteria for Asperger's syndrome as set out by Szatmari et al. (1989) in social relationships with: (a) having no close friends, (b) avoiding others, (c) having no interest in making friends, (d) being a loner, (e) having a clumsy social approach, (f) have a one-sided response to peers and having difficulty sensing feelings of others as well as being detached from feelings of others, (g) he was "reticent and self-reliant" (Henry, 1979).

He also meets the criterion set out by Szatmari et al. (1989) for impaired non-verbal communication. He showed limited facial expression and indeed it was said by Douglas (1947) that he "rarely if ever laughed" and had a "reserve and awkwardness in company".

The last criterion Szatmari et al. (1989) was odd speech and he certainly talked very little. Indeed in battles according to Douglas (1947) he sometimes didn't inform people about his future military plans. We don't have information on whether he had idiosyncratic use of words or repetitive patterns of speech.

Asperger's Disorder (APA, 1994)

He certainly meets the first criterion of a qualitative impairment in social interaction (APA, 1994). He had a failure to develop peer relationships and there was a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment and interests with other people (Douglas, 1947; Henry, 1979). There was a lack of social and emotional reciprocity. Henry (1979) described him as "a withdrawn, morose, isolated personality of eccentric habits and with a hypochondrical preoccupation which bordered on the bizarre". He also said that he was "grim and humourless" (Henry, 1979). At school he was described as being "shy and unsociable, retaining much of the awkwardness of his previous personality" (Henry, 1979). During the American Civil War there were much rumours that he was "mad" and some of his fellow officers resented his aloof, high handed way of conducting his campaigns (Henry, 1979). It was noted by Douglas (1947) that when General Winder came to work with Jackson he had "a will as inflexible as that of Jackson himself and at first their relations were not very cordial and each certainly underrated the other; in many things, they were too much alike to fit exactly". Despite being a loner, being aloof and distant Douglas (1947) stated that "never in the history of warfare has an army shown more devotion to duty and the wishes of one man" as his army showed during the second battle of the Manassas.

The second criterion for Asperger's disorder (APA, 1994) are restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behaviour, interests and activities. He was preoccupied with religion and with war. Henry (1979) points out that he was "an avoid reader of military history and studied intensively the campaigns of Napoleon". He received the nickname "Stonewall" during the 1st battle of the Manassas when his "Virginia brigade stood up to the enemy in a very rigid fashion and Lieutenant H. Lee cried out "look! There is Jackson's brigade standing behind you like a stone wall" (Douglas, 1947).

He and his army was "well-disciplined" (Douglas, 1947). Nevertheless Jackson was described as the "worst-dressed, worst-mounted, most faded and dingy-looking general" there was ever seen (Douglas, 1947). "In all his movements in riding to a horse to handling a pen, the most awkward man in the army" (Douglas, 1947). He walked and rode in a most "ungainly" manner (Douglas, 1947). While he was "aloof and secretive he drove his soldiers mercilessly; and his discipline was almost inhumane but the troops marched and fought and died for him with remarkable devotion" (Douglas, 1947). He studied war and military matters all his life and was probably one of the greatest generals that has ever commanded an American army. He was described as being "a bold leader, probably the boldest the war (American Civil War) produced" (Douglas, 1947). Indeed it was this boldness and leading out his army from the front which was entirely unnecessary which led him to be shot at the battle of Chancellorsville an event that may very well have lost the war for the southern states (Alexander, 1996). He was entirely indifferent to bullets flying around him. He was a brilliant military strategist but then he thought of very little else throughout his life except perhaps of God" and had a great ability to "mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy (Alexander, 1996). He read no newspapers and allowed no newspaper correspondents to visit his camp.

Conclusion:

There is no doubt that 'Stonewall' Jackson met the criteria for Asperger's disorder which gives the individual enormous handicaps in terms of social relating and empathising with other individuals but can be enormously beneficial for a leader as is shown by Jackson in his leadership of his army. He met all Szatmari's et al. (1989) except missing one additional item under the heading of odd speech for which historical data is not available. Because he was a Professor in the Military Academy and studied battles and war throughout his life he was better prepared for the American Civil War than any other military general. This extreme focus on a single topic can have enormous benefits and it is probably impossible for anyone to produce work of true genius without this exclusive focus."

Stonewall Jackson and Natural Depravity

Yesterday's post on Stonewall Jackson made me think of this passage from Melville's Billy Budd:

"In a list of definitions included in the authentic translation of Plato, a list attributed to him, occurs this: "Natural Depravity: a depravity according to nature." A definition which tho' savoring of Calvinism , by no means involves Calvin's dogmas as to total mankind. Evidently its intent makes it applicable but to individuals. Not many are the examples of this depravity which the gallows and jail supply. At any rate for notable instances, since these have no vulgar alloy of the brute in them, but invariably are dominated by intellectuality, one must go elsewhere. Civilization, especially if of the austerer sort, is auspicious to it. It folds itself in the mantle of respectability. It has its certain negative virtues serving as silent auxiliaries. It never allows wine to get within its guard. It is not going too far to say that it is without vices or small sins. There is a phenomenal pride in it that excludes them from anything mercenary or avaricious. In short the depravity here meant partakes nothing of the sordid or sensual. It is serious, but free from acerbity. Though no flatterer of mankind it never speaks ill of it.

But the thing which in eminent instances signalizes so exceptional a nature is this: though the man's even temper and discreet bearing would seem to intimate a mind peculiarly subject to the law of reason, not the less in his heart he would seem to riot in complete exemption from that law, having apparently little to do with reason further than to employ it as an ambidexter implement for effecting the irrational. That is to say: Toward the accomplishment of an aim which in wantonness of malignity would seem to partake of the insane, he will direct a cool judgement sagacious and sound.

These men are true madmen, and of the most dangerous sort, for their lunacy is not continuous but occasional, evoked by some special object; it is probably secretive, which is as much to say it is self-contained, so that when moreover, most active, it is to the average mind not distinguishable from sanity, and for the reason above suggested that whatever its aims may be--and the aim is never declared--the method and the outward proceeding are always perfectly rational."

See also, this quote on why Jackson did not drink alcohol:

"Having lingered to the last allowable moment with the members of my family... it was after 10 o'clock at night ( May 30,1862 ), when I returned to headquarters for final instructions, and before going to the General's room ( at the hotel in Winchester ) I ordered two whiskey toddies to be brought up after me. When they appeared I offered one of the glasses to Jackson, but he drew back, saying: "No, Colonel, you must excuse me, I never drink intoxicating liquors."

"I know that, General," said I," but though you habitually abstain as I do myself, from everything of the sort, there are occasions, and this is one of them, when a stimulant will do us both good; otherwise, I would take it neither myself nor offer it to you. So you must make an exception to your general rule, and join me in a toddy to-night."

He again shook his head, but, nevertheless, took the tumbler and began to sip its contents. Presently putting it on the table, after having but partially emptying it, he said: "Colonel, do you know why I habitually abstain from intoxicating drinks?" And on my replying in the negative he continued: "Why, sir, because I like the taste of them, and when I discovered that to be the case I made up my mind at once to do without them altogether."

Col. A.R. Boteler in the Philadelphia Weekly Times; as quoted in "Sparks From the Campfire," Southern Historical Society Papers, x ( June, 1882 ), 287

 

 

 

Stonewall Jackson -- VMI's Worst Professor?

An interesting excerpt from a new book on Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.


The Daily Beast

"He was the most peculiar of teachers. According to the many accounts left by his former students, he did not really teach at all. Instead, he would assign what were considered to be extremely difficult lessons, and then listen to “recitations” of those lessons by cadets at the blackboard, correcting them as they went along. “At the appointed time [Jackson] ‘heard’ them, and this was about all of it,” recalled one former cadet. “Discussions in the class-room were unknown, and even explanations were infrequent . . . The text was the one great thing which he came to ‘hear,’ and we came to ‘say,’ if we could, and most of us commonly couldn’t, when the said text was Bartlett’s Course of Natural Philosophy, in three of the toughest volumes this scribe ever attacked—‘Mechanics,’ ’Optics and Acoustics,’ and ‘Spherical Astronomy.’”

Jackson’s behavior in the classroom seemed as peculiar as it did everywhere else. “When questioning the cadets,” wrote future Confederate general James H. Lane, one of his students, “he had a peculiar way of grasping his lead pencil, with his thumb on the end towards the cadets, and when a mistake was made, he would say ‘rather the reverse’ and flip his thumb back on the pencil.” When befuddled cadets asked him to explain some point, Jackson’s answer—devoid of imagination or technique—was simply to recite back to them the exact words of the text, which he had committed to memory and then rehearsed for several hours in darkness. Though this did nothing to help impart knowledge to his charges, some were impressed anyway by his command of the subject.

“In the section room he would sit perfectly erect and motionless,” recalled cadet James McCabe, “listening with grave attention and exhibiting the great powers of his wonderful memory, which was, I think, the most remarkable that ever came under my observation.” But Jackson’s power of recall offered little help to students who had trouble understanding his course. When one cadet insisted, after hearing Jackson explain a problem twice in exactly the same way, that he still did not understand it, Jackson ordered him to leave the section room. The result was that, while the brightest students managed to master the course, those in the middle and at the bottom were often left on their own to flounder, and sometimes to fail.

To make matters worse, Jackson placed great value on regurgitating every last detail of the assigned texts. When, in response to Jackson’s question “What are the three simple machines?” a cadet answered, “The inclined plane, the lever, and the wheel,” Jackson replied, ”No, sir. The lever, the wheel, and the inclined plane.” That was exactly as they were listed in the textbook, and that was how Jackson wanted it. No amount of student outrage or protest could dislodge him from this position. His course managed to be both dreadfully dull and appallingly difficult, with few light moments. 

...

It is noteworthy, considering how difficult it must have been for him to engage year after year in a difficult job for which he had no aptitude, that he even stuck it out. (His one attempt to leave was a failure, too: he applied for a job teaching math at the University of Virginia in 1854, but did not get the job.) One explanation comes from his second wife, Anna, who said that Jackson had once been asked by a friend if it wasn’t presumptuous of him to take the teaching job at VMI when his eye illness made him incapable of doing it properly. “Not in the least,” Jackson said. “The appointment came unsought, and was therefore providential; and I knew that if Providence set me a task, he would give me the power to perform it. So I resolved to get well.” He persisted because he believed God wanted him to."

 

American Oligarchy: Economic Elites Domination

 

As usual, I'm about 6 months behind on all things viral. But this political science study apparently created some significant buzz. Briefly put, the researchers found that policies that reflect the interests of the people whose incomes are at the 90th percentile (the rich) are far more likely to see public policies enacted that reflect their desires than people whose incomes are at the 50th percentile (the middle class). In fact, the only times that the middle class see policies enacted that they support are when those policies are also supported by the rich. The authors suggest that these findings support the notion that the political structure of the United States is best described as one of Economic Elite Domination, rather than Electoral Majoritarianism (majority-rule). Most commentators have painted this study as proof that America is an oligarchy, not a democracy. I believe the word they are searching for is plutocracy.

The good news, which I haven't seen mentioned in any other commentary, is that the interests of the economic elites and the interests of the average citizen correlate at a remarkably high +.78. It's not like they both want the exact same policies (for example, the middle class is less enthusiastic than the elites about immigration and gay rights), but at least they are playing in the same ballpark. I wonder what the correlations are for other Western nations?

Scanning the paper, I find it interesting that while middle class interests are positively correlated with the positions held by Mass-Based interest groups (e.g., AARP, AFL-CIO, UAW) and negatively correlated with the positions of Business-Based interest groups (e.g., oil companies, defense contractors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce), those correlations are rather weak (+.12 and -.10, respectively). Even more interesting is that neither Mass-Based nor Business-Based interest group positions correlate significantly with those of the economic elites (+.01 and -.02, respectively). The economic elites apparently influenced policy independently of  (not through) the Business-Based interest groups. (I wonder if this is the result of factions within the economic elite cancelling out the influence of each other's business-based interest groups?)

In an interview with Talking Points Memo, one of the authors (Martin Gilens) said something that should make people rather uneasy:

What are the three or four most crucial factors that have made the United States this way?

"Very good question. I'd say two crucial factors. One central factor is the role of money in our political system, and the overwhelming role that affluent individuals that affluent individuals and organized interests play, in campaign finance and in lobbying. And the second thing is the lack of mass organizations that represent and facilitate the voice of ordinary citizens. Part of that would be the decline of unions in the country which has been quite dramatic over the last 30 or 40 years. And part of it is the lack of a socialist or a worker's party."

Headline: Princeton professor supports establishment of National Socialist Workers Party in United States! There is a "worker's party" in France, by the way -- it's called the National Front.

Also, see the folks from Freakonomics here for a contrarian view on the influence of money in American electoral politics. The interesting puzzle is, with so much at stake, why is so LITTLE money spent on U.S. political campaigns? In 2012, according to Open Secrets, $2.6 billion was spent on the presidential campaigns and $3.7 billion was spent on the combined congressional races. That might seem like a lot, until you consider that Americans spend $40 billion a year on lawn care, $18 billion a year on credit card late fees, and $2.3 billion a year on tattoos (2011 figures).