I’m In Love

You know this already. With Canada. British Columbia more specifically. But she’s playing very hard-to-get, meaning I have not received an offer of citizenship yet. After all I’ve done for her, not to mention my charming personality, it’s an outrage.

So, ponder this from The New York Times by way of WalletHub.

I would like to invite the city managers of Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Scottsdale, and Casper to pitch me. By which I mean send me a proposal that I can’t refuse. To assist, here are my priorities. Strict gun laws, a progressive/liberal majority, clean open water exclusively for swimmers, state-of-the-art bike infrastructure, four seasons with one being a mild/sunny winter, vegetarian restaurants, and low enough housing costs so that I can more easily bolt if and when Canada comes to her senses.

Thank you in advance.

‘Hum 10’ For The Win

The Brutal Harvard Class That Suddenly Everyone Wants to Take.

From the Wall Street Journal:

“On a Tuesday morning in October, Samantha Matherne paced as she marked up on a white board explaining the philosophical underpinnings of Jane Austen’s “Emma,” with segues into Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant.

The philosophy professor posed big questions to the 90 students gathered in Boylston Hall: ‘Why did Austen create such an unlikable heroine?’ she asked. ‘Why read novels at all?’ And finally, as the 75-minute lecture ended, ‘What will become of Emma—and what will become of you?’

The students burst into applause.

Hum 10, as it’s commonly known, has become the surprise hit of Harvard’s academic lineup and something of a campus institution. Demand to get into the class has surged, fueled by word-of-mouth from ‘Hum Alums’ who talk it up on social media. Applications (essays required) shot up 40% this fall with 180 incoming freshmen vying for 90 spots.

. . . The class is definitely not for padding the GPA. Students read a hefty book a week and write regular essays. There is no pass/fail option. Digital devices are verboten, and attendance is taken in every lecture (pink slips for those who arrive late).

. . . In their applications and in interviews, students expressed the urge to be forced to tackle classics they otherwise wouldn’t read, the need to combat frayed attention spans and the desire for an antidote to The Machine. Several mentioned with disdain that people who aren’t in the class wondered why they didn’t “just Chat the books,” i.e., use AI.”

Be still my beating heart.

Bend

I don’t want to write this and you don’t want to read it because it’s depressing as hell and there’s more than enough disturbing news to process. One can only take so much. The end result, we’re desensitized to school shootings. And the more desensitized we become, the more vexing the problem. A downward spiral that must delight the NRA.

I dig Bend, which I visit annually, the last time three weeks ago. Many, many fond memories, mostly of cycling with good friends. And I have acquaintances and friends in Bend who I immediately thought about.

This article left me even more hopeless about solving this problem.

Depressing point one being the most obvious. The tragic loss of such young lives, three students and a 25 year-old teacher who described her Silver Rail Elementary special education teaching job as her “dream job”. With another student and teacher in critical condition.

Depressing point two. The cluelessness and callousness the mother, who allegedly kept an AK-47 in her apartment, demonstrated by saying her “son was a good boy who she seriously missed”. Then saying she was sorry for the families losses had to be completely lost on them and everyone in the community.

And maybe most depressing of all, this quote from the article, describing the school parents’ mindset.

“Now they’re lining up for other ways to help: Meghan Standish, a stay-at-home mom in the neighborhood, said that when she went online to sign up for a meal train to help the family of Rhoam Summer, a 5-year-old killed in the shooting, every night until Christmas was booked.

Beyond looking to help, she was debating other plans as well.

‘I know a lot of friends are interested in getting their concealed carry permits after this,” Ms. Standish said. “I know I am.’”’

More guns. When does it end?

Denver For The Win

German Lopez in the paper of record, “We Know How to Fix Homelessness. Look at Denver.”

Strong start:

“Homelessness, all appearances to the contrary, is a long-solved problem. We know both the causes and the cure. You wouldn’t think that’s the case from visiting many U.S. cities. Stymied by political and financial hurdles, progressive bastions including Los Angeles, Seattle and Burlington, Vt., appear to have given up. They have surrendered public spaces to the homeless and their encampments to the point that it’s difficult to describe these spaces as truly for the public anymore.

Denver shows what happens when a city puts into place proven policies with determination and focus. Not only has it dramatically reduced homelessness, it embarrasses every other urban jurisdiction that has failed to deal with its Covid-era surge of homeless encampments. Other cities no longer have an excuse.”

Sober analysis:

“Politically, none of this is easy. On the policing side, progressives remain skeptical of using law enforcement to deal with what they see as largely an economic issue. On the housing side, the constraint is money. Building housing and shelters requires public and private funds that cities often don’t have and aren’t willing to prioritize over other spending and tax cuts.”

Progress towards ‘the goal’:

“. . . residents told the mayor they finally had been able to get their lives in order. Staff at The Aspen and other shelters spend much of their time preparing people to leave. They help residents get the documents they need to find a job and permanent housing. They connect them to training, education programs and additional government aid, including housing vouchers and rent subsidies. Residents don’t face hard limits on how long they can stay, but providers are, under their contracts, evaluated on how many people they help get on the right path.

The goal is to keep people off the streets for good. To that end, the city still has to address the high cost of housing. Denver has enacted some reforms, but buying and renting a home remain too expensive for much of the poor and middle class.”

Progressives are too soft:

“Progressives tend to view the enforcement side of anti-homelessness strategies with disdain because it can involve criminalizing an economic or a mental health issue. At the same time, residents don’t want encampments clogging up parks and sidewalks. Progressive cities have tried to get around the dilemma by flooding the streets with social services, hoping that offers of help would get people on the streets to pack up. The reality, as cities have painfully learned, is that people often need a stronger push to abandon their tents.”

The Principal principle:

“Mayor Johnston described his strategy through his perspective as a former school principal. ‘Your job is to keep everyone safe,’ he said. ‘That means I love every single kid in the building. And if there’s one kid who’s making other kids in the building feel unsafe, my job is to either help him change his behavior or hold him accountable for it.'”

The key ingredient:

“I came away from Denver convinced that the mayor’s focus and determination are the most crucial factors. I’ve seen this happen nationwide: Policies that work in one place fail in another because officials can replicate the law or the money, but not the leadership — the force of will — behind the original success.”

If you could use a dose of hopefulness, read the whole thing.

We’re All Sheep

Because The End of Average was so excellent, I’m imbibing in a second serving of Todd Rose. The thesis of Collective Illusions, subtitle, “Conformity, Complicity and the Science of Why We Make Bad Decisions” is that we don’t think through things independently. In contrast, we take short cuts, mindlessly going along with what we think others in our favored circles think. Often though, because everyone is taking similar shortcuts, we don’t realize there’s not much of a consensus at all. In essence, everyone is just going along to get along.

This insight is not flattering to the point that a lot of readers will likely say to themselves that it doesn’t apply to them. That they are outliers who often think things through independently. And how sad that others aren’t as stalwart.

The examples I kept wrestling with were, oddly given Rose is a professor, mostly absent from the book. That is, a post-modern progressivism that gripped higher education during the end of my career as a professor. Meaning, more specifically, an apparent consensus around repeated land acknowledgements, the delineation of pronouns, and related signals of “withitness” that struck me as oddly performative at times. A land acknowledgement at the beginning of an academic year seems entirely appropriate, and even at commencement as a type of bookend, but repeatedly at the start of every meeting? But I never even whispered that question that was swirling around in my peabrain. I went along to get along. As did many, maybe even most, of my colleagues.

This excerpt from Collective Illusions isn’t directly related to the overarching thesis, but stupefying enough to highlight.

“Many people will even sacrifice something they care about in order to feel comparatively superior to others. In February 1995, researchers asked 257 faculty, students, and staff at the Harvard School of Public Health to answer a set of hypothetical questions about which of the two worlds they would rather live in. Here is one of them:

A. Your current yearly income is $50,000; others earn $25,000.

B. Your current yearly income is $100,000; others earn $200,000.

Prices are what they are currently, and prices (therefore the purchasing power of money) are the same in states A and B.

Which one would you choose?

If You answered A, you were in the 56 percent majority. This choice would allow you to earn more than others, even though scenario B would pay you more overall. For most people, then, feeling superior was more important than making more money.”

What say you?

Whither The (dis)United States?

This morn I should’ve been staring at the black line on the bottom of the pool. Instead, I sampled the paper of record’s “Great Reads” series. In this case, “Depressing Read” would be far more accurate.

The headline will save you ten minutes. “They Argued About Trump at a Dog Park. Then They Pulled Their Guns.” Yes, for some unexplainable reason I read that headline, and then, like the swimmer I shoulda been, dove in.

Just one sampling:

“In the back of the police car and while being booked, he asked four times about the well-being of his dog, Frankie. He did not ask about the condition of the man he had shot.”

Top reader comments:

Depending upon who you are, your socio-economic status, where you live in the (dis)United States, and what content you selectively choose, life is either steadily getting better in the (dis)United States or worse.

Violent crime is way down, yet you can get shot at a dog park. Personal technology makes it far easier to keep in touch with many more people, yet loneliness is on the rise. Despite far less funding for medical research, and a greatly weakened CDC, impressive cutting-edge medical advances continue, extending lifespans.

I’m of two-minds. Due to my economic and related privilege I’m optimistic, but more generally, pessimistic. It’s obvious to me that most people’s lives are not improving anywhere near as much as mine.

Timothy Snyder sees my half-filled glass and empties it.

Two things can be true at the same time. In October, 2026, in the (dis)United States, life can be getting better for the New Aristocracy and future historians will convincingly argue that the world’s preeminent superpower had already begun it’s steady decline.

Postscript. Wonderful antidote to the dog park debacle.

Cornell

The end of Jennifer Weiner’s opinion piece.

“I wanted to think the world had changed, that all those years of marching and making demands by students at colleges all over the country had resulted in more effective systems. That colleges had better ways of handling sexual assault. That we’d educated boys and girls about rape culture. That young men see their female classmates as people. That all our work meant something.

Looking at the screenshots the Chi Phi brothers sent that night, I think maybe all that’s changed since 1987 is the technology.

All I can do is hope that in another few decades, when one of my daughters is dropping off her daughters on campus somewhere, things will finally be better. Until then, we’ll have to keep giving our girls the talk, and hoping, truly hoping, that it’s enough.”