Canada on drugs

David Warren writes about the latest Canadian statistic showing drug use doubling over the past ten years:

I'm aware that I'm writing in the newspaper in which the semi-legendary Dan Gardner wrote innumerable series of award-winning articles arguing that the legalization of drugs would put an end to all associated organized crime and make the world safe for democracy. It's one of those issues about which, even though I am a vocational pundit, I have never had an opinion. But wait for it, I'm about to come up with one.

The flaw in the libertarian argument, is that people don't need permission to misbehave. That is the part of human behaviour that comes naturally. Instead, it takes a considerable amount of repressive tradition, social stigma, and legal threat, to get anything good out of the species. And while there may be some tactical discussion of what is worth making illegal, and what is not, the idea that you can reduce crime by getting rid of laws is tautological.

In this case, the question of organized crime is tertiary. We have police to take care of that sort of thing, and if there aren't enough, then we need more.

The secondary question is: Do we want to live in a country which is a magnet for all the superannuated hippies in the USA? While the Americans progressively close the border against drug shipments passing the other way? With consequences for all the dwindling number of Canadians who do not happen to be stoned out of their wee minds? But even on this level, drug legalization would be merely an act of stupidity.

The primary question is, do we want the drug culture to become our public culture? For that is the unseen goal we now approach: in a word, Holland.

The flaw in the libertarian argument, which David points out, but doesn't identify as such, is that if recreational drugs are to be legalized, it will deprive us of the freedom to live and raise our children in a drug-free environment. This lack of thought for externalities (consequences to third parties of your actions) is perhaps the main reason why I am not a libertarian. To be fair, libertarians believe that such things can be resolved through private contracts, i.e. that we could develop drug-free neighborhoods where the inhabitants agree contractually not to use drugs. But since most cities are mostly built, such a thing is currently almost impossible. So we have to choose, which freedom do you most value?

Comment:

The terrible truth is that drugs do not cause immoral behaviour.

However, drug laws do.

I'm with the libertarians on this issue.

Agree that their proposed solution of drug-free neighbourhood contracts seems silly and unworkable.

What's more important is to refute present misconceptions about drugs. And also to abolish the forcible drugging of law-abiding people.

Posted by: Tom Robinson at December 3, 2004 04:03 AM Permalink

Comment:

I hope you don't decide you have a right to raise your children in a drug free enviroment. Jailing every drinker and smoker will take some doing.

Posted by: Brett at December 21, 2004 07:58 PM Permalink

Magical Mystery

I was over thirty when I first learned to play a musical instrument. If I try, I can still remember what it was like to listen to music back then. It was magical and mysterious. It made me feel things, indescribable, wonderful, joyous, sad. Each tune, unfathomably unique, its own special musical world. I would sit back and let the music wash over me and marvel at it, each unique note coming down exactly in its place, revealing its secrets.

Then I taught myself music, and I learned its structure. The scale (a term, the meaning of which I knew, but somehow never absorbed), major, minor, chords. I noticed that songs were built around chords, even when not played. And I learned what patterns create what moods. And I noticed that each song, far from being unique, was often very much like many other songs. In fact, whole genres, like blues, were little more than different arrangements of the same tune. Much of the mystery, and the magic was gone. But strangely, I began to enjoy music not less, but more. For all magic and mystery I lost, what I gained deeper, richer, and even more magical.

I often get the feeling that people shy away from certain kinds of knowledge because they don't want to destroy life's mystery. They don't really want to know who they are, or why they are attracted to their spouse. They believe that they should know intuitively how to raise their children, or how to make their marriage work, or how to enjoy life. And there are some good reasons for this: they intuitively do know much, the same way that the musically untrained know much about music. (I realize how much I knew intuitively when I hear non-western music. Though I find it pleasant to listen to, it is almost incomprehensible to me. Though with western music I pick up tunes instantly and remember them easily, with non-western music the tune is forgotten second the music stops.)

One of the life-coloring differences between the secular culture of the US and religious Jewish culture is the commonplace introspection of the intuitive. Self-analysis is part of the culture. Not psychological self-analysis, but self-analysis to determine whether you're doing things right, being a good person, getting the most out of life. It is common for people to take classes on raising children and on couplehood, in addition to Bible-oriented, or more "spiritual" classes. It is assumed that we know these subjects imperfectly, at best, and that there are things that can be learned by (more or less) formal methodology. In fact, these subjects are considered important aspects of spiritual growth, not just practical wisdom.

Uncovering the little mysteries of life doesn't make it more prosaic, but deeper, richer, and more magical than ever.

Comment:

I would agree that few people spend any time considering who they are and why they believe twhat they believe.

But I think that many people are afraid to take a good hard look inside. It is hard for them to be exposed and to have view their faults.

Posted by: Jack at December 3, 2004 04:23 AM Permalink

Comment:

So, what was the musical instrument?

Posted by: wintermute at December 3, 2004 09:12 AM Permalink

Comment:

I started with keyboard, but quickly decided that being good enough to enjoy listening to myself would take more investment than I was willing to make. So I switched to guitar and harmonica.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 3, 2004 09:53 AM Permalink

Comment:

How difficult was the guitar?

I had a brief period on the piano when younger, and experienced the alteration in the perception of music that you describe.

Now, like you, I am a post thirties type, interested in picking up an instrument. Your observations as to what it is like would be appreciated.

Posted by: wintermute at December 3, 2004 11:38 AM Permalink

Comment:

Wintermute: I'd like to answer you, but I don't have time at the moment. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow night (EST+7).

BTW, thanks for dropping by! This has some bearing on our other discussion: the way you perceive a culture from the outside is often quite far from the reality perceived by its practitioners.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 3, 2004 02:02 PM Permalink

Comment:

Beautifully stated David. That is exactly how I feel about genetics, umm, and mathematics, and well, I guess, Life! Why should understanding the intricate, fantastical and magical processes that define our universe lessen the awe we feel?

Posted by: jinnderella at December 3, 2004 11:39 PM Permalink

Comment:

Anything which is understood is not magical. The magic consists in the recognition that the system is incomplete (necessarily so, given that it can never account for its own first principles).

Posted by: Daniel at December 4, 2004 09:19 AM Permalink

Comment:

Nope-- I disagree! (hardly ever happens with you) :)
"any significantly advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"! The magic is that the system works! When black holes moved from theory to reality with the radio-teleoscopy proof, did they become less magical and awe inspiring?
If the statistical theory of jinn particles in quantum mechanics is validated, will the particles become less fascinating and magical? Not to me! :)

Posted by: jinnderella at December 4, 2004 04:34 PM Permalink

Comment:

"Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic" because both amaze the masses, as neither is understood. "That the system works" is either not understood (and so my previous response holds) or is accounted for by another system, in which case there is no cause for awe, as all that occurs is occuring necessarily.

The "fascination" (originally from the Latin fascinum, "evil spell") is not part of the system.

Posted by: Daniel at December 5, 2004 12:51 AM Permalink

Comment:

Personally, I am fascinated when things work, especially when I understand it.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 5, 2004 01:11 AM Permalink

Comment:

Daniel, I still don't think understsnding the mechanism lessens my awe or fascination one iota (heh. evil spell. I am sure the ID people would agree with you that that is a good definition of interest in evolution). Perhaps we are operating on two different definitions of magic though.

Posted by: jinnderella at December 5, 2004 01:50 AM Permalink

Cognition and Musical Instruments

Wintermute asks:

How difficult was the guitar?

I had a brief period on the piano when younger, and experienced the alteration in the perception of music that you describe.

Now, like you, I am a post thirties type, interested in picking up an instrument. Your observations as to what it is like would be appreciated.

Piano is singularly difficult instrument, in my opinion, because there are only two ways in which the quality of a note can be varied - its length and volume. Of well-known western instruments, only the harpsichord is worse - you cannot even do that! (Okay, on the piano you can use the pedals too, big deal.) In contrast, with all other instruments you are in direct contact with the musical element, and can vary the quality of the note by the way you play, introducing microtones, or different harmonics, through processes cognitively similar to skills you already have.

Not that I don't like piano music - in fact I love it. But adding emotion to piano music requires mastering the cognitively complex skill of playing many notes in quick succession, or even at the same time, usually with different rhythms, a kind of musical pointillism where each note has to be individually specified. By way of example, imagine playing a simple tune, say "Oh, Susana" on the piano. Playing it straight would be extremely boring. In order to make it interesting, you would have to come up with some sort of complex arrangement for it, something most people can't do spontaneously, even if they can play it. In contrast, I have no trouble playing it on the Harmonica with enough musical interest that I (at least) find it interesting. I can modulate the notes in all kinds of interesting ways, taking advantage of cognitive pathways I already have for voice (after all I have been speaking for a long time). Guitar is somewhere in between - though our hands, unlike our lungs, lips, and tongue, are not normally used for producing sound, it seems fairly natural to map that ability to the way you pick, strum, or bend a string - much more natural than what you have to do with a piano!

If I were to recommend a instrument to start with, I'd definitely choose harmonica. Not only is it easy to add color to your notes, to keep yourself interested, but you can go up and down the scale by simply sliding your mouth up and down the instrument. True, the layout of the notes takes a little getting used to (not much, in my experience), but it has the advantage that the blow notes form major chords (which is why it's called an harmonica), and if you're playing western music, it is very natural to use this as your frame of reference. I just started teaching my four-year-old, we'll see how it goes.

Comment:

To maximize expressiveness, you can play cross harp. Using for example a G harmonica in the key of C, the major is then on the suck reeds and thus far easier to bend.

Posted by: triticale at December 10, 2004 06:02 PM Permalink

Israel: The Brand

Jonathan Medved thinks Israel needs rebranding:

While Silicon Valley still reigns supreme among technology movers and shakers, Israel is clearly in an unassailable second place. In the third quarter of 2004, Israel produced 113 startups that attracted venture capital funding. Over this same period, the entire United States produced only 467 venture-backed companies. This means that Israel, with a population just two percent of America's, has almost 25% of the venture-backed startups relative to the US. Add to this Israel's number of patents filed and granted, its legion of companies traded on Nasdaq, our recent IPOs, mergers, and acquisitions, and the data is truly impressive. Yet these statistics tell only part of the story.

The fact is that the majority of technology-connected people around the world both use and interact with Israeli technology several times a day without even knowing it. Every time you open your Intel-based computer with either a Pentium or Centrino inside, you are using Israeli know-how. The same when you leave a voice mail message on a Comverse mailbox or when you send an AOL or ICQ instant message. Or when you use any electronics that has a circuit card or display inspected by Orbotech, or a flash memory from Msystems or SanDisk.

Whether you know it or not, Israel is there when you are billed for a phone call by Amdocs or when you contact a call center monitored by Nice or Verint.

Almost everyone on the Internet is protected by a Check Point firewall or by a myriad of Israeli antivirus products. This list can go on and on; and yet while this "daily dose" of Israeli technology is a fact of life, we get virtually no credit for it. Most people have no awareness of how much of their indispensable technology is actually "Made in Israel."

Add to this the new life-saving, medical, and green technologies now being developed by Israeli companies such as Proneuron's spinal cord restoration, Teva's cost-saving generic drugs, Given's pain-saving Pill Cams, InSightec's non-invasive cyst blaster, Syneron's cosmetic and skin savers, Ormat's geothermal and wind energy plants, and you have a broad story of Israeli companies working for the benefit of mankind.

I have worked almost my entire professional life in the Israeli high-tech industry, so I am in a position to comment on this. Except perhaps in the internet security industry, all high-tech companies try to hide their Israeli origin - it's considered bad for business. Often they open up headquarters in the US, or (less often) other countries. I have been to high-tech conventions in the US where people have looked at my business card and said, "Israel? Are you kidding?" as if it said Upper Volta (now called Burkina Faso, incidentally a country with more than twice Israel's population). On the other hand, once you get to a certain level in the high-tech corporate hierarchy, there is widespread recognition of Israel's importance in the industry. 

Comment:

Poor hasbara has been a continuous problem for many years now.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2004 08:05 AM Permalink

Comment:

It is better to keep low profile.

Posted by: jaimito at December 9, 2004 12:51 PM Permalink

Killing burglars

Instapundit writes:

I agree. [That it should be legal to kill burglars in your home - DB] In fact, as self-defense against burglars generates positive exernalities, by reducing the number of burglars, and their willingness to break into homes which might be occupied (thus reducing the risk that people will suffer Mr. Symonds' fate), there's a good economic argument that it ought to be not simply tolerated, but actively encouraged and even subsidized.

It is interesting to compare this with halakha (Jewish law). According to halakha, you are required to kill burglars who break into your home, in self-defense. (In Jewish law, self-defense is not an option, but an obligation.) The reasoning is that a burglar who breaks into your home, as opposed to a thief who steals surreptitiously, comes prepared for opposition - i.e. he is prepared to kill you if he meets you. Therefore, killing him is by definition self-defense.

UPDATE: Instapundit links to a Daily Telegraph article. It is a shocking account of what happens to a society when it refuses to defend itself. It tells us a lot about what's going on in Europe today. Sample:

When I debated this issue with the eminent lawyer Lord (Andrew) Phillips on the Jeremy Vine radio show, he argued that while the number of burglaries would drop if there were an unqualified right of self-defence "the number of injuries to householders will vastly increase because the burglars will get their retaliation in first... It is an iron rule, criminals are more violent than victims."

The victim always has a psychological advantage over the attacker: If the price of aggression becomes to high, the attacker can walk (or run) away. Criminals don't want to get hurt, they want to get away with their actions.

After John's murder my mind was filled with violent thoughts. I imagined his killers strung up on gibbets in Trafalgar Square, being pecked at by the pigeons. Then I received a letter from his friend and fellow Catholic, Lord Grantley, who said: "John would have wanted us to pray not only for his family, but also for his murderers, that they should repent, for otherwise they would perish, a fate he would not have wished on anyone."

There is no contradiction between praying that murderers repent, and killing them in self-defense.

Trackback from Serenade, Make my Day:

The more I read about Jewish law and morals, the more convinced I become that 5000-odd years of refinement have actually been good for quite a lot. I found this item on Rishon Rishon (one of my favourite Israeli blogs, by the way):

Comment:

In Colorado, we have the "make my day law". Most burglars think twice.

Posted by: jinnderella at December 7, 2004 09:37 PM Permalink

Knowledge of Intuition

Amritas responds to the post where I talk about my fondness for complex systems, such as evolution and economics, which are created by the application of simple, easy-to-understand rules. He talks about one of my other great intellectual loves, intuitive knowledge:

One does not need to spell properly or to get an 800 on the English portion of the SAT to get through life as an Anglophone in America. One does, however, have to decide to use a(n), the, or nothing before a noun on a regular basis. Such decisions are at the 'heart' of the language - the core known to all native users regardless of level of education. No native English speakers hesitate to choose between a(n), the, or nothing in the middle of a spoken sentence. Even a child can do it correctly. It seems self-evident - though it's also so hard to explain. If someone asked, "When do you use the?", could you give an instant (and short!) answer?

When I use the term intuitive knowledge, I'm referring to things that people know (which are true) but which people can't explain rationally. I find this kind of knowledge fascinating because people usually equate their thoughts with their self, e.g. "I think, therefore I am" - when the reality is that there is a great deal of thinking that we do which we are not even aware of.

Almost everything that we do, we do intuitively: walk, eat, see. To those who think that these things are innate, and therefore not thinking, I say: have a baby, you will see that these things are learned. But that doesn't tell the whole story: we are physiologically built to learn them. Children who don't learn these things at a young age will probably never be able to learn them, or will learn them poorly, and with great trouble. Language falls into this category. How many of us know the grammatical rules of our own language? Even professional linguists don't know all the rules of their own language. Learning language by learning grammar and vocabulary can only take you so far, the rest must be done intuitively, through usage. There are innumerable little rules in every language, that you must learn in order to be proficient in it. The amazing thing is that every everybody successfully masters those rules at least for one language. Even profoundly retarded people usually do a very good job of it, just as they learn to walk, eat, and see. (Anyone who has tried to write optical recognition software knows how hard it is, rationally, to distinguish objects from visual input. Yet people do effortlessly.)

I am very much a second-language speaker of Hebrew. If I concentrate, I am capable of producing Hebrew that Israelis will mistake for native, but this level of concentration is usually incompatible with thought. I have settled on an accent which Israelis have told me is "not bad" - which means that it is clearly foreign. And though I know the rules of Hebrew grammar, when I'm tired, or concentrating on a difficult thought, my production ability declines dramatically. Nevertheless, most of what you read about Hebrew on this blog are not things that I learned in school, rationally, but the results of thought-experiments performed on myself. Though I gained fluency in the language only as an adult, I was capable of absorbing through osmosis innumerable rules that rationally I don't know about.

There are those who claim that knowledge of God should be on the list of those things we know intuitively. I'm not so sure. What I am sure about is that worldview is on the list, and God may or may not be part of it. Our worldview enables us to interpret the events of our lives, in much the same way that sight enables us to interpret visual images, or language ability enables us to interpret speech. Hardly any of us even know that we have a worldview, or what it is if we do. Certainly it's not something we've learned rationally, in school (though the school environment is important in forming it: why I am so adamantly in favor of school choice). It's something we pick up through osmosis, like language, first from our parents, then from society at large. In my opinion it's the most important thing in our lives, and most of us pay no attention to it, neither in ourselves, nor our children.

Comment:

yes, i agree, god is an emergent property, not an atomic one. an analogy i would use:

language:monogenic trait
god:polygenic trait

that is, if the language gene is 'faulty' you are retarded, you can't speak, if it isn't, you can talk. it is an on-off feature. god is influenced by a host of background variables, so so tweaking one might not change your views too much, and different people can have very different views because of the combinitorics that emerge out of all the different variables (the gene analogy does not imply that all the variables are genetic obviously!)

Posted by: razib at December 6, 2004 10:13 PM Permalink

Comment:

I don't think that language is a monogenic trait, but I do think it's a physiological unit. Like a car, it can have many components, any one of which can incapacitate the car if it breaks. While performance can be better or worse, there has to be a very high degree of quality for it to work at all. I think we have a physiological unit for worldview too, when it doesn't work we get schizophrenia (an incoherent worldview). Godliness is a characteristic of worldview, not of the worldview unit.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 7, 2004 10:42 AM Permalink

Comment:

I find language to be amazing, just incredible. One of the things that I have noticed is that when you count to yourself it is typically in the language you learned to count in.

It doesn't matter how many languages you speak, most of the time you will rever to the initial language.

I don't have scientific references for this, just my own empirical observations gained from many discussions with multilingual friends and family.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2004 07:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

Jack: I have made the same observation. My data is unanimous, I so I think it's pretty good even if unscientific.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 7, 2004 07:50 PM Permalink

Comment:

david, no, "language" is not monogenic, but there is probably an outsized role given to on particular regulatory gene. that is, the expression of hundreds of genes downstream might be contingent upon the character of this gene.

Posted by: razib at December 8, 2004 04:08 AM Permalink

Comment:

Razib: Thanks for the link, it's VERY interesting!

Summary for my readers: The FOXP2 gene is responsible for regulating (turning off and on) many genes which are important for producing language. (Presumably it also regulates genes which have nothing to do with language.)

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 8, 2004 09:56 AM Permalink

Decency and Defiance

John Ray tells the story of Marxism, Leninism, and Fascism, tracing the ideas back to American progressives:

They were the ideas of the American "Progressives". And who was the best known Progressive in the world at that time? None other than the President of the United States -- Woodrow Wilson -- the man who was most responsible for the postwar order in Europe. So Mussolini had to do little more than read his newspapers to hear at least some things about the ideas of the American Progressives.

And what those ideas were is pretty amazing. "Progressive" was the label favoured by the American Left of the day -- as it still is -- and yet they believed in such things as war being a purifying force, the subjugation of democracy to elite leadership, book-burning, stiff-arm salutes, loyalty oaths, flag ceremonies, the inferiority of blacks and Jews and, of course eugenics. And who said this: "Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty." It could easily have been Mussolini or Hitler but it was in fact Woodrow Wilson.

So 20th century Fascism was in fact an American invention, or more precisely an invention of the American Left. Like many American ideas to this day, however, it proved immensely popular in Europe and it was only in Europe that it was put fully into practice. As it does today, American conservatism kept the American Left in some check in the first half of the 20th century so it was only in Europe that their ideas could come into full bloom.

It makes me think that what we have here is a conflict between intellectual fashion and basic decency. Ideas come and go with the winds of fashion. Only basic decency keeps them from inspiring tyranny (sometimes).

Hanuka

Tonight is the first night of Hanuka (חנוכה). Hanuka is the best known of the Jewish holidays, at least in the US, it is therefore assumed to be the most (or at least, one of the most) important. It is not. Its prominence in the US is due solely to its proximity to Christmas, giving Americans an excuse to call December the "Holiday Season". (Personally, I have always found this patronizing, we all know what holiday the "Holiday Season" is really about. Rather like a parent making a big deal about winning the consolation prize.) In fact, Hanuka is one of the least important Jewish holidays. It is not one of the seven holidays of the Tora (Pesah, Shvi`i shel Pesah, Shavu`ot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kipur, Sukot, Simhat Tora), it's a far younger holiday, added in historic times, to celebrate the victory of the Jews over the Seleucid Greeks, and the rebirth of the Jewish state in 165 BCE.

Hanuka in Israel is fun precisely because it's not so serious. If you don't have children, you probably won't feel it much at all. But children love it. In most families, every member of the household lights a hanukiya (חנוכיה) - the special candelabra made for celebrating the holiday. A kosher (fit) hanukiya has eight candlesticks in a row, a the same level (actually, to be more precise, they must be arranged such that when viewed from the front, no two candles are overlapping). A ninth candlestick must be either not at the same level, or not in line with the others - this candle is called the shamash (שמש). The Hanuka candles are specifically the eight candles in a row - the shamash is emphatically not a Hanuka candle, which is why it must be distinguished from the others. Its presence is required because of a singular restriction on the use of Hanuka candles, namely that you can't. It is forbidden to use the Hanuka candles, it is permitted only to enjoy them. When lighting the candles we say the following:

הנרות הללו אנו מדליקים, על הניסים, ועל הנפלאות
ועל התשועות, ועל המלחמות שעשית לאבותינו
 בימים ההם בזמן הזה, על ידי כוהניך הקדושים
וכל שמונת ימי חנוכה, הנרות הללו קודש הם
ואין לנו רשות להשתמש בהם
אלא לראותם בלבד
כדי להודות ולהלל לשמך הגדול
על ניסיך, ועל נפלאותיך, ועל ישועותיך

Hanerot halalu anu madliqim, `al hanisim, v`al hanifla'ot
V`al hat'shu`ot v`al hamilhamot she`asita l'avoteynu
Bayamim hahem bizman haze, `al y'dey kohaneykha haq'doshim
V'khol shmonat y'mey hanuka,hanerot halalu qodesh hem
V'eyn lanu r'shut l'hishtamesh bahem
Ele lir'otam bilvad
K'dey l'hodot ulhalel l'shimkha hagadol
`Al niseykha, v`al nifl'oteykha, v`al y'shu`oteykha

These candles we are lighting, for the miracles, and for the wonders
And for the victories, and for the battles that you made for our forefathers
In those days at this time, by means of your holy priests
And all of the eight days of Hanuka, these candles are holy
And we don't have permission to use them
But only to look at them
In order to thank and praise your great name
For your miracles, and for your wonders, and for your victory

"Your holy priests" refers to the priestly family, the Hashmona'im, who led the rebellion against the Seleucids, and the passage as a whole is meant to remind us not to use the candles. The purpose of the shamash is to be the candle that we use (i.e. if the other candles weren't lit, the light of shamash would be enough), if we need to.

During Hanuka, we insert the following words into every prayer, and the blessing after every meal. A short history of the day:

 ועל הנסים ועל הפורקן ועל הגבורות ועל התשועות
 ועל הנפלאות ועל הנחמות ועל המלחמות
 שעשית לאבותינו בימים ההם בזמן הזה
 בימי מתתיהו בן יוחנן כהן גדול חשמונאי ובניו
 כשעמדה מלכות יון הרשעה על עמך ישראל  להשכיחם תורתך
 ולהעבירם מחוקי רצונך
ואתה ברחמיך הרבים עמדת להם בעת צרתם
רבת את ריבם דנת את דינם נקמת את נקמתם
מסרת גבורים ביד חלשים ורבים ביד מעטים וטמאים ביד טהורים
ורשעים ביד צדיקים וזדים ביד עוסקי תורתך
ולך עשית שם גדול וקדוש בעולמך
ולעמך ישראל עשית תשועה גדולה ופורקן כהיום הזה
ואחר כך באו בניך לדביר ביתך ופינו את היכלך וטיהרו את מקדשך
והדליקו נרות בחצרות קודשך וקבעו שמונת ימי חנוכה אלו
להודות ולהלל לשמך הגדול

V`al hanisim v`al hapurkan v`al hagvurot v`al hatshu`ot
V`al hanifla'ot v`al hanehamot v`al hamilhamot
She`asita l'avoteynu bayamim hahem bazman haze
Bimey Matityahu ben Yohanan kohen gadol Hashmonay uvanav
K'she`amda malkhut Yavan harsha`a `al `amkha Yisra'el l'hashkiham toratekha
 Ulha`aviram mehuqey r'sonkha
V'ata b'rahameyhka harabim `amadta lahem b`et saratam
Ravta et rivam, danta et dinam, naqamta et niqmatam
Masarta giborim biyad halashim, v'rabim biyad m`atim v't'me'im biyad t'horim
V'r'sha`im biyad sadiqim, v'zedim biyad `osqey toratekha
Ulkha `asita shem gadol v'qadosh b`olamekha
Ul`amkha Yisra'el `asita t'shu`a g'dola ufurqan k'hayom haze
V'ahar kakh ba'u baneykha lidvir beytekha ufinu et heykhalekha v'tiharu et miqdashekha
V'hidliqu nerot b'hasrot qodshekha v'qav`u shmonat y'mey Hanuka elu
L'hodot ulhalel l'shimkha hagadol
 

For the miracles, and for the salvation and for the mighty deeds and for the victories
And for the wonders and for the consolations and for the battles
That you made for our forefathers in those days at this time
In the days of Matthew son of John the high priest,  the Hasmonean, and his sons
When the wicked kingdom of Greece stood over your people Israel to make them forget your Tora
And to make them transgress the statues of your will
And you in your great compassion stood with them at the time of their troubles
Disputed their disputes judged their judgments, avenged their vengence
Delivered the strong at the hand of the weak, the many at the hand of the few, the defiled at the hand of the pure
And the wicked at the hand of the righteous, and the wanton at the hand of those who busy themselves with your Tora
And for yourself you made a great and holy name in your world
And for your people Israel you made a great victory and salvation as this day
And afterwards your children came to the sanctuary of your house and cleansed your Temple and purified your holy site
And lit the candles In the courtyards of your holiness and established these eight days of Hanuka
To thank and to praise your great name

A Tax Cut Parable

I hardly ever point to something when I have nothing to add, but this is too good:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

What happened next? See for yourself!

Trackback from Solomonia, A Parable of Taxation:

Here. (via Rishon Rishon) Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay...

Universities promote uniformity

I've known for a long time how uniformly leftist universities are (I went to one once myself), now I know why:

The truth is that it is very, very hard to get a tenured faculty position at a university. And the hiring process is unlike anything in a private business. In most cases, one needs a unanimous vote of the professors in one’s department to get tenure. This puts a high priority on intangibles like collegiality, which often translates into sharing the same politics and ideology.

This is a sure-fire way to get uniformity - and mediocrity. The most original people are almost by definition controversial. (Not necessarily disliked, but disbelieved.) A system to promote diversity would be designed differently, with say, professors taking turns on a small tenure committee, or even having outsiders be in charge. The system described above sounds more like a self-perpetuating aristocracy or cult than anything else.

The article concludes:

Unfortunately, fixing this problem will take a long time. It is certainly not amenable to a legislative fix, such as a quota for conservatives. It would help, however, to shame universities into treating intellectual diversity the same way they now treat race and gender. But first they have to admit they have a problem. That hasn’t happened yet.

I disagree about it not being amenable to legislative fix. At least in the public sector, any state legislature that cared to do so could begin fixing the situation by appointing trustees or administrators dedicated to diversity. The problem is that half of them like the bias on campus, and the other half think it's not worth the fight.

Comment:

Agreed. Leftists think that diversity is to do with ethnicity, gender and financial background, instead of ideas and opinions.

It's also important to assess students solely on academic competence. Factors like attendance and participation should be made irrelevant to grading.

-- Tom

Posted by: Tom at December 8, 2004 11:12 PM Permalink

Comment:

a few points

* i think the non-monetary prestige accrued to being a university professor appeals more to leftists than rightists. that is, being a professor is a way to be upper-middle-class, but not money-grubblingly so, and still have a lot of prestige.

* the university faculties have been *much more resistant* about imposing quotas on their own hiring policies than have been when it comes to pushing quotas in terms of student admissions. while departments might have a "token" (that is, a token female in the engineering dept.) here & there, they are much less open to proportionality....

Posted by: razib at December 8, 2004 11:39 PM Permalink

Comment:

In an academic environment there is a big push to be one of the "boys" because many are afraid to stand on their own, they do not want their research challenged.

You are correct, this is very disturbing. It is very important to have free thinkers and to allow them to work without encumberance.

Nothing profound there, but fighting bureaucracy and groupthink can be challenging.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2004 04:04 AM Permalink

Semitic Consonants

Amritas writes a nice post, in which he talks about the word 'shalom', in the context of Semitic roots and patterns. He also links to this table in JPG form. For me, at least, the table is quite blurry and hard for me to read, so I have reproduced it below. In the process, I have turned it on its side, and replaced some of the original graphs in order to make it more amenable to the blog and HTML format. I also added a column for my own Hebrew transcription, that I use on this blog, which is meant to represent a superset of modern Hebrew pronunciations.

Original Notes: (1) In Akkadian the consonants gh, `, h, ', h, and usually y were lost, although there is evidence that they were present in the oldest stages of the language. (2) In Hebrew and Aramaic the non-emphatic stops b, p, d, t, g, k become fricatives (pronounced v, f, dh, th, gh, kh, respectively) after vowels unless they are doubled; *w at the beginning of words became y.

My Notes: (1) Underlined letters and q, except for h, are "emphatic". The original pronunciation of emphatic consonants is unclear, but in modern Hebrew and Arabic they are velarized, or uvularized (the back of the tongue is raised during pronunciation, in the case of q, this means that it is pushed back to a uvular stop). (2) In Modern Hebrew the process of stops regularly becoming fricatives, described above, has reversed itself for dh, th, and gh, which have reverted to d, t, and g respectively. Modern Hebrew spelling reflects the sound system in the Hebrew column of this table, which does not correspond one-for-one with my transcriptions. (3) By and large, Semitic languages are quite closely related, more comparable to the Germanic language family than the Indo-European family. Armed with this table, it is quite easy for amateurs to figure out cognates. For example, when I hear an Arabic word, I can usually come up with a Hebrew cognate.

Maladapted to our Habitat

For millions of years we lived in tribal units, stretching back in time far beyond the origins of our species, and continuing almost up to the present. A mere 10,000 years ago, all our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers. Probably, most of our ancestors were still hunter-gatherers only 5,000 years ago. But even after that date, we lived in small villages - from a social point of view not too different from a hunter-gathering tribe. Modern life, intimately bound to the social milieu of the city, became the native habitat of the majority only about a hundred years ago, and then only in the most technologically advanced countries of the world. It is a profound change for mankind that after millions of years of evolution for tribal life, we find ourselves in an habitat that doesn't support it.

It is my opinion that many of the psychopathologies of the modern world result from the breakdown of the tribal unit. We are highly adapted to tribal life, and only by understanding this fact, and what it implies, can we understand human nature. The bottom line is this: we are profoundly maladapted to our habitat. Symptoms of our maladaption include feelings of ennui, isolation and depression, so common in our society. From an evolutionary perspective, these are clearly disadvantageous. Who is more likely to survive and reproduce – a depressed, listless individual, or a happy, energetic individual? Clearly, these problems are severely selected against, and indeed in tribal societies living close to our original habitat these problems are rare. It could be argued that these feelings are adaptive responses to negative environmental factors, like pain, which would cause us to avoid them. But my observation is that people who suffer from these problems usually have no idea as to their cause, or what to do to overcome them. In my opinion it's more properly seen as a spurious emotional response to unexpected circumstances, much like a computer program given unexpected input – the output is spurious because the inputs haven't been accounted for.

It is well known that our taste for sweets and fats, an advantage in a world poor in these nutrients, has lead, in lands of plenty, to the current epidemic of obesity. We have no natural restraint (or not enough) to keep us from overeating simply because this circumstance was too rare to make developing such restraint evolutionarily advantageous. Something similar has happened to the social nutrient of the tribe. It used to be geography that circumscribed the tribe, and economics which bound it together. Tribal units were physically isolated from one another, villages were distant, and cooperation essential to survival. (The distances need not be great, I think a half-hour walk is enough.) Now the speed of our cars, the density of our cities, and the complexity of our economy have erased these boundaries.

From my vantage point, these things seem obvious (though not necessarily true!), probably because my vantage point is unusual in the modern world: it is distinctly tribal. My ancestors have been urban for thousands of years, and it is perhaps because of this that they developed cultural defenses to high-density living, creating a tribal life through cultural institutions. (Or perhaps not, in any case, the institutions exist.) But let us examine more closely the psychological notion of a tribe. A tribe is a group of people who act, to some degree, altruistically. Barring unusual circumstances, any group of people whose members interact with each other, will become a tribe. The commenters of this blog are a tribe: I am quite sure that they are more likely to be altruistic toward each other than toward people chosen at random. But from a psychological point of view, that is not the defining characteristic. Rather, the most important characteristic of the tribe is that it gives the individual an identity. People who have a weak identity are likely to do crazy things to get one, like become a Nazi, or just become depressed. On the other hand, one who is immersed in his tribe lives with a certain kind of tranquility, a life without the modern plagues of ennui, isolation and depression, though it may be full of ordinary boredom, loneliness, and unhappiness. (The difference between the two: one is chronic, the other causal hence adaptive.) When I look out at modern life, the closest thing to a tribe that I see is the workplace - and this is a poor substitute for the real thing, like eating cake instead of food: filling but not nutritious.

Given enough time, I suppose that humankind could evolve from dogdom to cathood, become a solitary creature that meets only to work and mate. I don't think this is likely. Another, easier, strategy is available: to augment our genes with memes, and create tribes strong enough to withstand the hardships of our habitat. I think the change will become clear in the next few generations. We are already seeing it now.

Some candidates for the tribes of the future: Observant Jews, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Parsis (though I hear that they're having a problem with fertility, an essential feature for survival), Sikhs, Jains, Marwaris (certainly other Hindu castes as well, that I don't know about), Japanese (I have heard that the true religion of Japan is Japanism), Falun Gong (other Chinese sects?), Druse, Ismailis (I would include Islamists, but my impression is that they're not demographically well-defined - maybe Islam as a whole should be on the list?)... Others?

Cross-posted at Gene Expression.

Trackback from The Pryhills, Carnival of the Vanities #117:

Welcome to the 117th Carnival of the Vanities! With the holiday shopping season in full swing, I'll be taking you folks on a trip to the Carnival of the Vanities Mall to get your weekly ration of rich, bloggy goodnessTM....

Trackback from annika's journal, It's Award Season:

Voting in the Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards begins tomorrow. (No. i'm not in it, i think you have to be Jewish.) But some very good blogs have been nominated. If you vote, don't forget to support Munuvans Rishon Rishon*...

Comment:

I came across your post on Gnxp. It's a great read.
Maybe when people talk longingly of the "good old days", dating back before they were born, it's actually because their half-evolved genes are crying out for comfort?

Posted by: Shareen at December 9, 2004 02:54 PM Permalink

Comment:

Shareen: Thanks.

And thanks for your corroborating evidence in the Gene Expression comments:

I am aware of Sikh, Jain and Marwari communities in India and it is well-known that they are "happier" than comparable "others" and it is also true that they are highly homogenized & in many ways, more altrusitic than the rest. (Co-incidentaly, they are also the most financially successful groups in India)

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 9, 2004 07:10 PM Permalink

Comment:

I shall comment here, and avoid having my toes trampled in the popular gnxp mosh pit that is your comment section there-- and here I have my usual exorbidant and unfair allocation of your attention. :)

I really liked what you say about the "tribe of gnxp". I don't know if you've noticed, but the political orientations of gnxper's are wildly disparate. Scott and Arcane are as far right as you can get, and razib comments weekly at Dean Nation, for example. Yet there aren't any furious arguments here about politics.

This is a beautiful post, and says so many things I agree with. I especially like the the idea of providing the tribe's offspring with a memetic armor of shared values, that you've talked about before. And the positive correlation of SES with tribe membership and "happiness".

But why 'future' tribes? Aren't orthodx jews a successful tribe already?

BTW, that was a highly "gnxpish" post-- can't wait for the next one! :)

Posted by: jinnderella at December 11, 2004 06:55 PM Permalink

Comment:

Many in the West are depressed and listless because we have thrown out the baby of morality with the bathwater of religion. We threw out the bathwater because most explicit religious beliefs are, frankly, nonsensical. But we forgot about right and wrong, and that acting wrongly can destroy a peron's mind as surely as electric shock therapy.

My explanation for rising levels of obesity is not that we are genetically compelled to eat kilo upon kilo of carbohydrate but that we do so because of its narcotic effect - it comforts us and relieves boredom. (And food is a drug one cannot easily give up altogether!) I don't know about everybody else here, but I can go for many hours without food or coffee if I'm engaged on an exciting task.

Rather than being concerned about one's identity I think it better to find worthwhile purposes to strive towards. My identity can take care of itself.

I must point out that no scientist has ever successfully attributed differences in human behaviour to differences in genetic make-up. Sociobiology is a fashionable faith, not a science.

Posted by: Tom at December 12, 2004 05:50 AM Permalink

Comment:

Rather than being concerned about one's identity I think it better to find worthwhile purposes to strive towards.

I think they're both true.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 12, 2004 08:21 AM Permalink

Comment:

Tom, "no scientist has ever successfully attributed differences in human behaviour to differences in genetic make-up"
huh? What about sexual behavior?

And, can you separate identity from purpose? :)

Posted by: jinnderella at December 12, 2004 03:15 PM Permalink

Comment:

Jinnderella,

I wasn't referring to genetic differences associated with anatomical or physiological differences, or major brain lesions.

If I'm born without arms due to some horrible genetic disorder then my different behaviour from my neighbour viz a viz trumpet playing is given.

If I'm born black in a white racist culture then I might behave very submissively in public for reasons of self-preservation. This is clearly attributable to my genes, but not in a sociobiological sense.

Likewise, if I'm born male then I'm going to act differently wrt sexual behaviour, partly for mechanical reasons and partly because I'm more susceptible to the male role memes.

But what of differences between like males, e.g. gay or straight?

If a scientific study could take cheek swabs from newborn babies and make successful predictions about their sexual preferences twenty years later then that would prove my theory wrong. But no observations could falsify "human behaviour is partly down to genes, partly down to memes". Thus it isn't a scientific theory.

This is morally important because some people want to blame bad behaviour on genes. Other people can't give up smoking because they are convinced they have an inherent genetic predilection for nicotoine (or addiction generally).

Posted by: Tom at December 12, 2004 05:36 PM Permalink

Comment:

>And, can you separate identity from purpose?

Yes, I think so! My identity is "Tom Robinson", English male, born in 1970s, raised in the anglican tradition, etc.

My purpose could be to create a stem cell therapy to treat Parkinson's disease, or to refute sociobiology, to educate my children in economics, to get a job as a greenhouse salesman, etc.

The identity part is rather dull and I didn't choose any of it so I refuse to let it limit me or restrict the scope of my altruism.

And I don't want the world to remain divided up into tribes. For example, it would be great if Europeans generally would adopt more Jewish moral values (developed over centuries of urban thriving).

Posted by: Tom at December 12, 2004 05:39 PM Permalink

Comment:

Hillel the Elder said it best: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" (Pirkei Avot 1:14)

Posted by: savtadotty at February 6, 2005 02:14 PM Permalink

My Kind of Labor Agreement

Is this reverse psychology or what?

The Ministry of Finance and Histadrut (General Federation of Labor in Israel) signed an agreement in principle last night. Under the agreement, the Ministry of Finance agreed to rescind three new taxes: on advanced training funds, on severance pay, and on shift work. In exchange, the Histadrut agreed to postpone a cost-of-living increment for public sector employees to 2006, and not to go on strike.

Minister of Finance Benjamin Netanyahu said the agreement would not breach the budget framework, thanks to an increase in tax revenues and previous cuts.

Really, I don't know.

Embrace Uncertainty

כִּי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ
לֹא כְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִוא אֲשֶׁר יְצָאתֶם מִשָּׁם
אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע אֶת זַרְעֲךָ וְהִשְׁקִיתָ בְרַגְלְךָ כְּגַן הַיָּרָק
וְהָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ
אֶרֶץ הָרִים וּבְקָעֹת
לִמְטַר הַשָּׁמַיִם תִּשְׁתֶּה מָּיִם

Ki ha'ares asher ata ba' shama l'rishtah
Lo' k'eres misrayim hi asher yasa'tem misham
Asher tizra` et zar`akha v'hishqita b'raglekha k'gan hayereq
V'ha'ares asher atem `ovrim shama l'rishtah
Eres harim uvqa`ot
Limtar hashamayim tishte mayim

For the land that you come to, to inherit
It is not like the land of Egypt from which you came out
Where you sow your seed and water it with your feet like a vegetable garden
The land that you are moving to, to inherit
Is a land of mountains and valleys
Because of the rain of the heavens you will drink water

Deuteronomy 11:10-11

God didn't want to give the Jews the land of Egypt, where the Nile provides a continual source of water, which you can pump into your fields at will, with your feet. He wanted the Jews to know every day that their fate depended on Heaven, that their only security is God. For the security of Egypt is an illusion. The Nile, like the rains, is subject to His will. And when it fails, the crisis is yet greater.

Today, in the rich counties of the world, we live in Egypt. We take it for granted that we will have enough to eat, indeed we view even unemployment, such as it exists, as an aberration, something that isn't supposed to be. If only the government were working properly, we think, it could guarantee us jobs. And so the government makes laws, and provides jobs, and gives us the illusion of job security. But still, the world is insecure. It is dynamic. What we call security is no more than delaying the inevitable. God made the world this way because it's the way He wants it to be. Security comes at a price, and the price is freedom, vibrancy, and strength.

Instead of us striving to hold back the sea, God wants us to learn to swim.

Comment:

Excellent post David.

Let me just say one thing:

>He wanted the Jews to know every day that their fate depended on Heaven, that their only security is God. For the security of Egypt is an illusion.

The post is almost paradoxical, because in one sense you're saying God wants us to maintain ourselves, but in another, you say that he wants us to depend on him.

The Christian Bible says that not a sparrow falls without God knowing it, and that if God looks out for sparrows, which cost less than a penny, then we should not worry--about food, raiment or shelter. We are also told to keep our minds "to things above" and not on things of the world, because (and I think you will agree) the things of the world are passing away.

The books of Job and Ecclesiastes also delve into the passing nature of our endeavors.

Posted by: Ingemar at December 15, 2004 08:41 AM Permalink

Comment:

Ingemar: You make an interesting comment. The omniscience of God is also a Jewish principle, but far from 'keeping our minds "to things above"' Judaism teaches that it's our (the Jews') task to perfect this world (tiqun `olam).

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 15, 2004 08:57 AM Permalink

Comment:

The theological virtue of Hope doesn't necessarily signify reckless abandon for the things of the world. C.S. Lewis says, "Aim for Heaven, and earth gets thrown in." In his view, the people who have made the greatest advances for the earth are the ones whose sights are heavenward (ie, the abolitionists, charity workers, etc.)

Posted by: Ingemar at December 15, 2004 06:49 PM Permalink

Two Narrow Lands

Amritas links to my previous post, and tells me something I didn't know (I love when that happens!):

The ancient Egyptian name for Egypt was t-'-w-y (vowels unknown), literally 'two lands'. t-' was 'land' (masculine) and -w-y was the masculine dual ending.

The Hebrew word for Egypt, misrayim (מצרים) also has the the dual ending: -ayim. I imagine that this is a reference to the fact that Egypt as a whole is a union of two distinct regions, each with its own history, known to us as Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. This reminds me of the Hebrew name for Mesopotamia: Naharayim (נהרים), which means "two rivers" - referring to that land's major features: the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The only other place name with a dual ending, that I can think of, is the Hebrew name of Jerusalem - Y'rushalayim (ירושלים), whose meaning is obscure, but whose dual ending inspires the notion that there are two Jerusalems: one Earthly, the other Heavenly. (These words, like all geographical features in Hebrew, are grammatically feminine-singular, despite the dual ending.)

There is a folk-etymology for misrayim which derives it from the word sar (צר) - narrow. There could be something to it, for Egypt is a narrow land, hugging the banks of the Nile, surrounded by desert. The m- at the beginning would be part of the pattern, not the root, cf. misparayim (מספרים) - scissors. This begs the question: Is there any relationship between Egyptian t-' and Hebrew s-r? It is not inconceivable. Both languages belong to the Afro-Asiatic language group (of which Semitic is a sub-group). Looking at the consonant correspondences in this table, I could hypothesize that an original th > s in Hebrew while th > t in Egyptian. The r > ' is also not inconceivable. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Afro-Asiatic languages to know. I've looked for information on the web about the family, and turned up surprisingly little, considering that it's one of the world's oldest, largest and most important. Here's what wikipedia says:

The Afro-Asiatic languages are a language family of about 240 languages and 285 million people widespread throughout North Africa, East Africa, the Sahel, and Southwest Asia. Other names sometimes given to this family include "Afrasian", "Hamito-Semitic" (deprecated), "Lisramic" (Hodge 1972), "Erythraean" (Tucker 1966.)

The following language subfamilies are included:

• Berber languages
• Chadic languages
• Egyptian languages
• Semitic languages
• Cushitic languages
• Beja language (subclassification controversial; widely classified as part of Cushitic)
• Omotic languages (controversial; sometimes argued to be outside Afro-Asiatic)

Here's their list of characteristic Afro-Asiatic features:

• a two-gender system in the singular, with the feminine marked by the /t/ sound,
• VSO typology with SVO tendencies,
• a set of emphatic consonants, variously realized as glottalized, pharyngealized, or implosive, and
• a templatic morphology in which words inflect by internal changes as well as prefixes and suffixes.

Some cognates are:

• b-n- "build" (Ehret: *bĭn), attested in Chadic, Semitic (*bny), Cushitic (*mĭn/*măn "house") and Omotic (Dime bin- "build, create");
• m-t "die" (Ehret: *maaw), attested in Chadic (eg Hausa mutu), Egyptian (mwt, mt, Coptic mu), Berber (mmet, pr. yemmut), Semitic (*mwt), and Cushitic (Proto-Somali *umaaw/*-am-w(t)- "die")
• s-n "know", attested in Chadic, Berber, and Egyptian;
• l-s "tongue" (Ehret: *lis' "to lick"), attested in Semitic (*lasaan/lisaan), Egyptian (ns, Coptic las), Berber (iles), Chadic (eg Hausa harshe), and possibly Omotic (Dime lits'- "lick");
• s-m "name" (Ehret: *sŭm / *sĭm), attested in Semitic (*sm), Berber (isem), Chadic (eg Hausa suna), Cushitic, and Omotic (though the Berber form, isem, and the Omotic form, sunts, are sometimes argued to be Semitic loanwords.) The Egyptian smi "report, announce" may also be cognate.
• d-m "blood" (Ehret: *dîm / *dâm), attested in Berber (idammen), Semitic (*dam), Chadic, and arguably Omotic. Cushitic *dîm/*dâm, "red", may be cognate.

In the verbal system, Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic (including Beja) all provide evidence for a prefix conjugation:

English	Arabic (Semitic)	Kabyle (Berber)	Saho (Cushitic; verb is "kill")	Beja (verb is "arrive")
he dies	yamuutu	yemmut	yagdifé	iktim
she dies	tamuutu	temmut	yagdifé	tiktim
they (m.) die	yamuutuuna	mmuten	yagdifín	iktimna
you (m. sg.) die	tamuutu	temmuteḍ	tagdifé	tiktima
you (m. pl.) die	tamuutuuna	temmutem	tagdifín	tiktimna
I die	ˀamuutu	mmuteγ	agdifé	aktim
we die	namuutu	nemmut	nagdifé	niktim

A causative affix s is widespread (found in all its subfamilies), but is also found in other groups, such as the Niger-Congo languages.

The possessive pronoun suffixes are supported by Semitic, Berber, Cushitic (including Beja), and Chadic.

The Hebrew word sar, in addition to meaning 'narrow', also means 'trouble'. Egypt was a place in which the Jews had some notable troubles. You might be more familiar with the word by way of the Yiddish 'tzuris' - troubles, from the Hebrew sarot (צרות), with the same meaning. In English, we use the word 'straits' in a similar fashion, e.g. 'dire straits' (a strait is a narrow body of water). 'Strait' in Hebrew is meysar (מיצר), from the same root, and in Hebrew it also symbolizes trouble.

UPDATE: I just realized that there could be a connection between sar (צר) - narrow and eres (ארץ) - land, linking it semantically with Egyptian t-'. Metathesis (switching letters, or parts, of words) is quite common in Semitic languages, probably the result of the root-and-pattern morphology, which can easily create unusual sound combinations. I was looking for this kind of relationship back when Amritas was talking about 'adam' and 'dam', without success at the time. Perhaps now I have found it? Of course, there's a problem: The lack of semantic relationship between 'narrow' and 'land'. Oh, well.

UPDATE: Now, several hours later, it occurs to me that the word sura (צורה) could be the missing link: it means 'shape' or 'form'. Although its root is s-w-r, roots are often related in this way. Also sur (צור) means 'rock', siyur (ציור) means 'drawing', 'picture', sir (ציר) means 'axis'. There seem to be a host of ways that sar and eres could be related.

UPDATE: Amritas responds, and confirms my guess as to the meaning of t-'-w-y!

Comment:

Hi,

Congratulations. This is a very informative site.

You may find this page of interest. http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/languageofgod.htm

Regards,

Pericles

Posted by: Pericles at December 13, 2004 01:51 PM Permalink

The Spice of Life

Diversity is the spice of life, I really feel that way - I enjoy diversity. But it's also useful. Diversity is the enabler of creativity, and creativity is the long-term insurance policy not just for our progress, but even for our continued existence as a species. Without diversity, eventually some circumstance will arise that will wipe us out entirely. With enough diversity, at least some will always survive.

Whenever I think of the benefits of diversity, I always think of the revolutionary discovery that 90% of stomach ulcers are NOT caused by stress, but by infection:

In 1983, Marshall presented his hypothesis to an international meeting of distinguished specialists in infectious disease. Many of the scientists and physicians attending the meeting were shocked by the notion that bacteria cause gastritis and stomach ulcers. Marshall's ideas seemed to be the reckless notions of a scientific upstart. Attributing gastritis or ulcers to a bacterial infection seemed outlandish. Martin Blaser of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee–a leading American researcher in infectious disease–called Marshall's ideas "preposterous."

The result - Marshall was ostracized, and driven to extreme action:

The reluctance of his colleagues to accept the idea that H. pylori causes ulcers provoked Marshall to act. Intent on proving his point, he made himself the guinea pig. Marshall prepared a broth of active H. pylori and drank it.

"Those were frustrating times for me," Marshall recalled in a recent interview. "Most of the experts believed that the presence of H.pylori in those who turned up with ulcer problems was just a coincidence. I planned to give myself an ulcer, then treat myself, to prove that H. pylori can be a pathogen in normal people. I thought about it for a few weeks, then decided to just do it. Luckily, I only developed a temporary infection."

That "temporary infection" gave Marshall stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting–classic symptoms of gastritis or the early signs of an ulcer. While he was ill, he underwent an endoscopy, a procedure in which a doctor uses a flexible fiber-optic tube with a tiny video camera on the end to examine the inside of the digestive tract.

Within a week after ingesting the H. pylori, Marshall's stomach showed marked inflammation, with crowds of the distinctive spiral bacteria hovering around the areas of inflammation.

And what if Marshall had been wrong? Does that mean that we shouldn't have funded his projects?

Amritas has been poking fun lately at some wacky educational institutions. While I don't disagree with his opinions of them, I take a somewhat more benevolent point of view: If this is the price of diversity, I'm for it. Of course, the problem is that educational institutions are NOT diverse. What we see is what happens when the government, or any small clique, gets to decide what kinds of diversity are legitimate. It reminds me of this disgusting work of "art" - courtesy of a Swedish government-funded art museum.

What the article linked above doesn't say is that Sweden has an anti-hate-speech law! So what is hate speech? Evidently glorifying Jew-killers, smiling while floating in a pool of blood, is not. In 1986 Sweden's prime minister was assassinated. I wonder what Swedes would think if an Israeli museum exhibited a similar work of "art" - but with Olof Palme's killer floating in the middle of a pool of blood? The fact that Sweden has anti-hate-speech laws effectively puts Sweden's stamp of approval on speech that it doesn't outlaw.

Not that I have any easy solutions to the problem, in the case of academia. (I have one for hate-speech laws: get rid of them.) Of course, a libertarian would advocate ending public funding of education and research altogether. But in addition to equity issues, I think these things have positive externalities, meaning that they benefit the general public in a way which doesn't automatically result (in a totally free economy) in rewards to the participants. I wonder what would happen if there were a voucher-system for university funding, and anyone could open a new university with a minimum of bureaucratic red-tape? In such a case students themselves would decide who gets funded by voting with their feet. Certainly there would be a lot more institutions of the kind that Amritas ridicules, but probably there would be a lot more quality institutions too. If so, I think it's worth it.

And sometimes, wacky ideas turn out to be right.

Comment:

My father was a pharmaceutical chemist by training and worked for 30+ years for Glaxo Laboratories both overseas and in the UK. He intimated that early information about bacteria being the cause of gastric ulcers was ignored because of the huge market for products like Zantac. It seemed an odd thing for him to say, as he owned a number of Glaxo shares at that time, in the early 80s. He did not mention the name of the researcher with whom he had spoken.

Pericles

Posted by: Pericles at December 14, 2004 01:48 PM Permalink

Last Night of Hanuka

It's the last night of Hanuka. Here's a picture of our hanukiyot (pl. of hanukiya).

Yet another party

I have to agree with Alice in Texas about this sentiment:

Christmukkah. Jewsweek writes about it here and the fourth rabbi here.

I cannot stand religious pick n' mix, mix n' match, free sampling and easy dealing. If you believe in something, then act like it. Don't hand it over for another one similar that seems just as good. That's called not believing in anything. Don't reduce religious ideas to the secular level: if you think festivals are just collections of bells and ribbons, then have the decency to admit it. Otherwise, why stop at two, why not join in Diwali and Ramadan and the Druid solstice as well? It's just some cheerful fun that doesn't mean anything, right?

Okay, for most Americans, Christmas and Hanuka ARE just reasons to party, but still, it seems disrespectful to both to combine them. I can just hear pseudo-tolerant fake-diversity lovers saying, "Combine Diwali and Ramadan and the Druid solstice as well? Great Idea! We just love all this spiritual stuff!" I think of it as the 'Imagine' syndrome. It really annoys me that those who most loudly proclaim their love of diversity seem to feel that diversity, like beauty, is only skin-deep.

UPDATE: None of the above keeps me from laughing at this (via Amritas):

What is the true meaning of Christmahanukwanzaka? Getting stuff like... phones as low as $39.99, 20% off our new Camera Phone, free Friday & Saturday night calling, plus fast, free shipping and a free gift bag!

Ellipsis in original.

Comment:

Unfortunately too many people miss the whole point of Chanukah which is the opposite to how it is generally celebrated. Gifts and presents and latkahs and singing, none of which are wrong, but if one does't understand that the holiday was against secularization, what is being celebrated? Not Chanukah.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at December 16, 2004 10:51 PM Permalink

Comment:

Hmm. Observations of holidays in the modern western world is generally an issue of personal taste. That people are celebrating Hanukah at all should give some comfort.

Mixing and matching holiday traditions in the West is not such a big deal, nor is it necessarily a sign of the dread influence of multiculturalism. Rather, it more often than not is simply a sign that people see themselves between traditions rather than exclusively in one camp or the other. Sure, a hunukiyah on top of a Christmas tree looks funny, but so what? And what's the big deal if Santa brings the kids a dredl a Hanukah geld (urk; aweful, aweful stuff).

Lighten up.

Posted by: Elhanan at December 20, 2004 05:35 PM Permalink

Carnival of the Vanities #117

Don't miss the 117th edition of the Carnival of the Vanities, hosted by The Pryhills. Rishon Rishon makes a brief appearance among the cornucopia (can you find it?).

Read-Through Archives

A few crazy people have told me that they want to read through my entire archives. Since this is the sort of craziness that I want to encourage, and since for a long time I have wanted an easy way to back up (not that I don't trust Pixy Misa, but you can never have too many backups) or print out my blog, I've added a new set of read-through archives. The links are on the left.

The read-through archives:

1. Have posts in chronological order (instead of reverse-chronological order) so you don't have to read backwards.

2. Include extended entries.

3. Include comments.

In other words, my entire blog can now be found on just eight monthly pages, which can easily be saved to disk, or printed out. For what it's worth.

Comment:

Ha! I have already read you, in your entirety. :)

Posted by: jinnderella at December 17, 2004 08:21 AM Permalink

Winter + Shabat = Cholent

It's winter now. The rains fall. The wind blows. The fire burns in the stove. And in my household, it means that it's time to eat cholent on Shabat. Cholent is not so much a type of food as a type of cooking. It can be anything, as long as its cooked for at least, say, 12 hours. Every Jewish community has some kind of cholent tradition, because Jews aren't allowed to cook on Shabbat, but something that is already cooked can be left on the stove, or in the oven.

The word 'cholent' is itself interesting, though it's Yiddish, it's origins are in Vulgar Latin:

The word cholent itself derives from the Vulgar Latin calente, which in turn gives us the Spanish caliente as well as the Catalan calent, and French chaud from the Old French chauld. They all mean "warm". Allowing the meal to cook over the Sabbath comes from a phrase in the Commentaries. In preparation for the Sabbath there is the phrase tamen et hachamin, "hide, or bury the hot things". It has come to mean "cover the hot food." In every language used, Yiddish, Hebrew, Jewish/Arabic or the Arabic spoken in Calcutta, Baghdad or Ethiopia the two basic words of the phrase, refer not to the food, but to the method of cooking. The word for hot in Hebrew is chamin, and it has become the name of this Sabbath food itself. Amongst Jews in Calcutta it shows up as hameen. The other word "hidden", is found all over the Middle East in different forms of the same word; tfina, adafina, dfina, adefina. They all mean covered or buried. This concept of unattended cooking on the Sabbath produced a popular Spanish dish: cocido madrileno, a boiled dinner with chick peas. It is known to Spanish Jews as adafina. No doubt emigres must have spread this dish. We find a similar dish in the Jewish populations of Cuba and in Egypt, both groups calling it dfina. When Jewish pied noirs came to France after Algerian independence, they brought adafina with them. French speaking Jews have shortened it to daf. In Morocco the same dish is called sefrina or schina, which means hot.

The Hebrew and Sefardi word for cholent is hamin (חמין) from the word ham (חם) - hot. More here (including recipes).

UPDATE: Amritas links and (among other things) gives these English cognates to cholent: cauldron, chowder, scald.

Tweaking Templates

You've probably noticed that I've been tweaking my templates lately. Since I can only test them in IE 6 and Firefox for Windows, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know of any problems.

Suggestions and other comments are welcome too.

Comment:

http://www.haayal.co.il/story_1370

Posted by: Off Topic at December 18, 2004 02:50 PM Permalink

Comment:

I am using Firefox and it looks good. Your layout is very clean and easy to read, something I am sure that most readers appreciate.

Posted by: Cerberus at December 18, 2004 08:50 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Cerberus.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 19, 2004 12:13 AM Permalink

Comment:

Looks fine in Safari.

Posted by: Elliot at December 22, 2004 07:28 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Elliot.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 22, 2004 07:39 PM Permalink

Indian Summer in December

I wrote my Cholent post on Thursday night (after midnight). Little did I know that the next day would be not windy or stormy, but clear, sunny, and very cold. Back in Boston we got weather like that around October and we called it Indian Summer.

In Israel you don't get rain at all from April to September. That, combined with the fact that we are surrounded by thousands of miles of deserts, means that the air is usually pretty dusty. Not enough to notice, most of the time, though we do get an occasional sandstorm. (Much of our topsoil is imported this way from Saudi Arabia.) However, since I live on the side of a mountain, with panoramic views in three directions, it has a big impact on the views around here.

In the winter the rain washes the dust out of the air, but since the weather is often rainy, and usually cloudy, you still don't get such good views. But clear sunny days are not uncommon. Friday was one of them, and I thought I would try to take some pictures. It's not easy to capture the effect of panoramic views, but I tried.

Here's the view of Tel Aviv from above my house.

Here's the main street of my little village, with the panorama in the background.

The band of slightly darker blue just below the horizon, and above the land, is the Mediterranean Sea.

Comment:

Beautiful pictures! Thanks for sharing. From the lush vegetation, you wouldn't think that you're surrounded by desert.

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2004 11:56 PM Permalink

Comment:

Ayzeh yofi!

Posted by: cba at December 22, 2004 02:32 AM Permalink

Thank You, Steven Den Beste

Nelson Ascher says it, and so do I:

You’ve proved to be a reliable compass. You helped us to apply reason and method to a chaotic situation. It would be unfair to ask more of you, but it is in the nature of things to do so. I’m grateful for your work. Thank you.

I consider myself lucky to have discovered him a few short months before his retirement (and to have received three denbestelanches). I wouldn't be blogging today if it weren't for Steven Den Beste. I distinctly remember the feeling, on first encountering him, that I had discovered a kindred intellectual spirit. It was through perusing his archives that I met Amritas, who both inspired and encouraged me to blog, and then introduced me to Pixy Misa, my gracious host. Then Steven's early links brought me a lot of my first readers.

Steven has visited Nelson's blog, and left a trail of some of the most heart-wrenching comments I have ever read. I have preserved them in the extended entry (as a backup) for posterity.

Continue reading "Thank You, Steven Den Beste"

Nelson says:

According to Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit: HOWARD OWENS has returned to the blogosphere. Who's next? Steven Den Beste?

Steven Den Beste replies:

#14	Dec 18 2004, 10:59 pm

You can forget it. It's not going to happen. I've been suffering for years from a genetically-caused degenerative disease. For the last year or so, the only way I was able to continue posting was by taking increasing doses of very powerful stimulants. (Understand that they were palliative; there's no cure or treatment for the underlying disease, and no one knows what causes it. The only reason it's known to be genetic is because it is found in family lines. In my case it was my father's family.) Those prescription drugs have serious side effects which I put up with in order to be able to keep writing for the site. But as that year went on, my enjoyment in writing for the site drained away. It's entirely possible that there were thousands of satisfied readers who enjoyed what I wrote, but I never heard from most of them. 80% or more of my email consisted of kibitzing, criticism, and other forms of ankle-biting. "Ignore them" someone said, but that's easy for you to say. Ignoring one or two such letters isn't too hard. But when it goes on like that day after day, week after week, dozens of such letters each week, I reached the point where writing posts became a duty, something I had to force myself to do, not something I looked forward eagerly to doing. Instead of looking forward to the process of writing, I cringed about the negative email I was guaranteed to receive in response. As to that purported majority who may have liked what I was writing, I did occasionally hear from them. Such letters usually begin like this: "I've been a reader of your site for a very long time, and have long enjoyed what you've written. But now I'm writing for the first time because I've found something I can criticize." That's not helpful when it comes to encouragement.

Steven Den Beste

[email] [homepage]

---

#15	Dec 18 2004, 10:59 pm

The only reason I wrote was because I enjoyed writing. But as time went on, I enjoyed it less and less. It almost seemed as if there was an organized attempt by my readers to try to ruin the experience for me, by assuring me after each and ever post that I'd done a lousy job of it. I tried several times to write posts explaining to my readers why the mail I was receiving was draining all pleasure from the writing process for me, but it never did any good. And as time went on, it took progressively larger doses of the drugs to make it possible for me to write, which meant increasingly greater side effects from those drugs. Finally, at the end of July, I'd had enough. The writing had become a chore, a burden. Everything I posted reaped a flood of critical email telling me all the things I'd gotten wrong, and collectively that email robbed me of any trace of pleasure I had gotten from writing in the first place. Meanwhile, the side effects from the drugs had gotten so serious that I decided it just wasn't worth going on that way. Why should I make that physical sacrifice for a group of people whose only purpose seemed to be to tear down everything I wrote? So I stopped taking the drugs. Without them, I could not write, not as I had been, not about the subjects I had been writing about, not in the depth I had been writing. The result was deep relief. There was no longer any feeling of obligation to write, no compulsion to do so even when I didn't want to. The ankle-biting mail declined to nearly zero. Most of the side effects of the drugs went away. (Alas, some of them seem to be permanent.)

Steven Den Beste

[email] [homepage]

---

#16	Dec 18 2004, 11:00 pm

Why did I start Chizumatic? First and foremost because it's about a subject which is trivial and unimportant. All the kibitzers and backbiters have better things to do and they leave me alone. Besides which, even if they were scrutinizing it, they'd either find easily verified facts (yes, thus-and-so series actually does have 24 episodes on 6 DVDs) or else they'd find that I was writing opinions. And while one might disagree with opinions, one cannot say they are "right" or "wrong". Which means that the ratio of backbiting letters has dropped from about 80% to maybe 50%, which is a substantial improvement. The overall rate of mail has dropped substantially. Where I used to get anything up to 30 letters per day, I suspect I get maybe 5 letters per week about Chizumatic. Where USS Clueless tended to get visited about 10,000 times per day, Chizumatic gets an average of about 400 visits per day (and I suspect a fair number of those are accidental). It would be nice if it were more, but considering the restricted subject matter that's about all I could reasonably expect. And anyway, with Chizumatic I'm now writing for me, not for my audience. 400 visits per day without putting up with drug side effects and without floods of critical mail is good enough for me. And since my health continues to deteriorate, it would take even more of those drugs than I was taking in July, along with even worse side effects, to get me back to the point where I could again write for USS Clueless. Sorry, folks, that's a sacrifice I'm not willing to make for you all. I posted for three and a half years, and made a small contribution to getting this nation through the worst part of the crisis. I cannot help any longer; you'll have to rely on other people now to carry the load. I gave it everything I had to give; there's nothing left now.

Steven Den Beste

[email] [homepage]

---

#17	Dec 18 2004, 11:01 pm

I feel a certain pride in helping to establish the "essay blog" as a legitimate form, and helping to inspire others to take it up. Glenn Reynolds performs a critical function and I have nothing but respect for him, but if the political blogosphere had consisted of nothing but Glenn-clones, it would never have had the political impact that it ended up having. But I can't participate in it any longer. The only reward I ever got for doing it was personal enjoyment, and an incessant flood of critical letters took that away from me. In the mean time, I would have to make a significant physical sacrifice if I once again took the drugs which made it possible for me to operate at that level and to write in that way. Several commenters here say they miss my writing, and I'm both flattered and grateful for that thought. But they don't know how great a price I'd have to pay to begin again. I'm sorry, but it's too high.

Steven Den Beste

[email] [homepage]

---

#18	Dec 18 2004, 11:38 pm

And like every long post I've ever made, I can predict a lot of the email I'll receive which will ruin things for me. Let's preempt some of it: 1. No, you cannot guess what disease I have and you do not have a suggestion for a miracle treatment for it. 2. It will not help for you to volunteer to filter my email for me to toss out the bad ones. 3. There is no mechanical/automated way to filter out the negative ones. And even if there was some way to filter out the negative email, it wouldn't do anything about the drug side effects I no longer care to suffer through. 4. Yes, new drugs are being developed all the time. But no new drugs are coming any time soon which would help me. I'm very familiar with the literature and am quite certain of that. 5. I don't want anyone's pity. 6. Save the platitudes. I don't want those, either.

Steven Den Beste

[email] [homepage]

 

Trackback from trying to grok, HE IS JOHN GALT:

I had a thought the other night that would probably make Den Beste cringe, but I realized that I'm glad that he shrugged. He started writing because it made him happy. He got noticed, and more and more people tried...

Trackback from Yippee-Ki-Yay!, The 2004 Yippee-Ki-Yay Award:

With most blogs (this one, for instance), it's the reader who suffers for the blogger's art. There are exceptions. When Steven den Beste decided he couldn't continue blogging, a huge void was opened in the blogosphere. The fact he per...

Trackback from TechnoChitlins, Stephen den Beste:

For those of you who, like me, read and loved the writings of Stephen den Beste, go here and find...

Trackback from porphyrogenitus.net, Tribute to USS Clueless:

Well, I kept hoping Steven Den Beste might change his mind and blog at USS Clueless again, but he explains why that won't happen in comments collected here from Nelson Ascher's Blog. During its heyday, this blog owed a lot

Trackback from Bryan's Basement, Thank You, Steven Den Beste:

The blogosphere lost an eloquent voice when Steven DenBeste retired from political blogging (he still blogs about anime on his blog Chizumatic.) After his sudden departure there were occasional rumors that he was going to return to the field. Unfortuna...

Trackback from Freedom Lives, Thanks Steven:

A lot of us in Blogdom, myself included, were inspired and owe a debt of gratitude we can never repay to Steven Den Beste. He has retired from blogging likely to never return. The reasons can be found here ....

Trackback from Croooow Blog, Thank you:

To Den Beste, who got me blogging......

Trackback from The Glittering Eye, Catching my eye: morning A through Z (UPDATED):

Running a little late today what with Christmas preparations, work intruding, Carnival of the Liberated, etc. Here's what's caught my eye today: A great series on the ethics of physicians making decisions for patients who have no one else continues...

Trackback from Chapomatic, What If Lou Gehrig Was A Curmudgeon?:

I miss the grumpy but clear and illuminating thinking of Steven den Beste. Apparently so do a lot of other people.

Trackback from Carnivorous Conservative, Steven Den Beste:

You can forget it. It's not going to happen. I've been suffering for years from a genetically-caused degenerative disease. For the last year or so, the only way I was able to continue posting was by taking increasing doses of

Trackback from Catastrophic Success, Thank you Mr. Den Beste:

While I was off-line last week, Nelson at Europundit speculated about Stephen Den Beste coming back to the blogosphere. I must say that I harbored the same hope. SDB had explained his writing process as something that burst forth from him after perco...

Trackback from Winds of Change.NET, They Also Serve... Thank You Steven Den Beste:

Many people missed U.S.S. Clueless' Steven Den Beste when he stopped blogging. Today, I learned why. All I can say is "Thank you, Steven."

Trackback from Bene Diction Blogs On, USS Clueless:

The USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) was one of the "A" listers. His blog was huge, and had about 10 thousand hits a day when blogging was fairly new to the web. Then suddenly Steven signed off. Rishon Rishon was inspired to blog because of the USS Clue...

Trackback from La Shawn Barber's Corner, Annoucements And Links:

I'd planned to do an annoucement post at least twice a month, but I kept forgetting. Here a few happenings and interesting posts around the blogosphere. Leave a comment or e-mail me if you have an announcement or link you'd like to share. This post w...

Trackback from too much truth to swallow, The USS Clueless departs the Grey Havens and sails:

Well that reset my understanding of what was going on with Steve. There’s literally nothing left to say except: All the best Steve. Continue taking care of your self, you will be in my thoughts.

Trackback from The Laughing Wolf, Thank You, Mr. Den Beste!:

I found this post yesterday through this at Instapundit. I have written a short comment at the story, but want to take the time to say it here. Thank you, Steven Den Beste. You see, no one has done more...

Trackback from The Tears of Things, So Long, Steven Den Beste:

by Jerome du Bois Steven Den Beste, the long-essay genius who piloted USS Clueless for three years, has retired from blogging. David from Rishon-Rishon called my attention to comments Den Beste made on David's blog, responding to a post by...

Trackback from Fresh Bilge, Thanks, SDB:

During the current redesign, I've deleted several inactive sites from...

Trackback from Pejmanesque, THANK YOU STEVEN DEN BESTE:

Those of us who started out blogging around 2001-2002 and who from time to time delve into the essay format for our posts, naturally looked and look to Steven Den Beste for inspiration and a benchmark of quality for our...

Trackback from IndustrialBlog, Hats off:

As almost everyone knows by now, Steven Den Beste explains why he has stopped blogging here.

Francis P. has an outstanding tribute to SDB's to...

Trackback from Physics Geek, So long, Steven den Beste:

You will be missed. So I finally started catching up on the backlog of blogs I read when I discovered this post over at Rishon's place. The comments she displayed from this Europundits's post explains a lot. I won't do...

Trackback from No Treason, Trapped In A Blogosphere He Never Made:

Or: Never Can Say Goodbye The Captain of the Clueless is still trapped in a blogosphere of ankle biters.

Trackback from Critical Section, Sunday, December 26, 2004 11:40 AM:

Thank you, Steven Den Beste. One of the really great long-form bloggers, he's apparently suffering from a degenerative disease. Too bad, for him, and for us. I haven't removed the old U.S.S.Clueless from my aggregator yet, hope springs eternal....

Trackback from triticale - the wheat / rye guy, Bold As Love:

Steven Den Beste has retired as an essayist, but fortunately his analytical skills are still being brought to bear, as in a comment here....

Trackback from Asymmetrical Information, While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:

Thank you indeed. I was extremely flattered to be called a 'kindred soul' by Steven Den Beste once. He was...

Trackback from Limbicnutrition Weblog, A giant falls: Steve Den Beste:

Is it all over? USS Clueless is barely updated. Steve is terminally ill. End of a fine era....

Comment:

Me too! Thank you Steven Den Beste. I have loved all your work, but most especially your anime posts. And I'm very grateful that I sent you the occasional NRR (no response required) swoony fan mail. I'm lucky, I'm an anime-head, so I still enjoy you every day.
I am sad that you had to suffer to write, but I don't pity you. Your suffering only grows your mythos for me. You remain a deeply romantic and mysterious figure, like Basil St. John with his Black Orchids, bearing agony for art or love.
Your God In the Shell post changed my life. I still think about it. Gratitude, jinnji

Posted by: jinnderella at December 19, 2004 11:10 PM Permalink

Comment:

Crap. I had no idea.

Thank you, Steven, for all your work.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 21, 2004 01:13 AM Permalink

Comment:

All I can say is thanks for the memories. It was all good. And as for not wanting pity, how about we just say,"understood." We miss you.

Posted by: Ruth H at December 21, 2004 02:49 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, you're right. I enjoyed your postings for well over a year and failed to write to thank you for your insight and efforts. I'm making up for that now. You have been greatly missed. Best regards and wishes for less pain in your life.

Posted by: David at December 21, 2004 05:24 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you SDB. Your blog was the best of the best. It might as well have been my homepage, as often as I checked for new postings. Best of luck in your new endeavors...

Posted by: Alan at December 21, 2004 05:27 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks Steven.

Posted by: Kenneth Greenlee at December 21, 2004 05:28 PM Permalink

Comment:

As it happens the one time we corresponded I disagreed. But if I had sent this man kudos every time I agreed with him neither of us would have had time for much else.

Maybe the right thing to do is to create a "Den Beste" award...

Posted by: J Bowen at December 21, 2004 05:28 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven Den Beste singlehandedly outdid most of the editorial boards of our 'leading' news media in the depth of his commentary on the subjects his attention turned to. And since said media elites 'protect' (mediaspeak for control) a vast gaping black hole of subjects they simply won't address, his attention in frequently taking aim at one subject or another therein gave illumination, frequently the first, for the rest of us.

Posted by: Hank Bradley at December 21, 2004 05:28 PM Permalink

Comment:

1) I'd have never guessed from his writing.

2) I learned a lot from what he wrote, miss it as well.

3) My own blog transformed in part because of his style. I became more comfortable writing essay-posts of my own.

4) Like others, I wish he could come back to writing at USS Clueless, but I understand completely that he can't. We all desire things that can't come to pass (while I'm wishing, why not wish for. . . [fill in several dozen blanks]).

Posted by: James "Porphyrogenitus" Ruhland at December 21, 2004 05:28 PM Permalink

Comment:

I propose a companion word to 'fisk'. When a person has utterly destroyed a concept or rhetorical position using logic, facts, charts, math and sarcasm, a 'denbeste' has occured.

Posted by: Peter Barrett at December 21, 2004 05:30 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven: You are a continuing inspiration. Thank you.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at December 21, 2004 05:32 PM Permalink

Comment:

Well Steven, I have a few things to say, and you can take them as you will.

I didn't always think you were wonderful, but even so, you were always careful to put up your own thoughts, not just parroting someone else, and you always showed your work.

I know what it's like to get hate mail. This campaign, some of my own readers responded to some of my work with virus attacks and spam deluges, along with personal insults about my family. I had to remove the photos of my family, but otherwise I took the attacks as a sign I was hitting the mark. That's not to say you owe anybody, just an observation that mad dogs bite anyone they can.

Writers like you inspire many others. W/o getting maudlin, you've made an impact, which is something to remember with pride.

There is no rule that you have to write again, ever. Then again, if the whim catches you, there's no reason you can't toss off something once in a while, if you wish.

Fair is fiction, we live in the real world.

That's all.

Posted by: DJ Drummond at December 21, 2004 05:37 PM Permalink

Comment:

Jeez, I could have never guessed, either. At least I was one of the people who sent positive mail...

Maybe someone could convince Bill Whittle to pare down/edit a Best of DenBeste? Good e-mail is great, but nothing says "Thank You" like cash...

Posted by: Kirk at December 21, 2004 05:38 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven if you ever see these thanks for the memories. I was one of the tens of thousands who loved your work but never said anything. Your work changed in some small way how I view and confront problems.

Best wishes, Know its a platitude but I sincerly mean it.

zion

Posted by: zion maffeo at December 21, 2004 05:41 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Precious few of us will ever create something of breathtaking beauty, but you did. Thank you for your brilliant essays.

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2004 05:43 PM Permalink

Comment:

I posted this today:

Update: Another Instapundit link raises the question of how to sit on the front porch, ready to chat or even argue, without being chased in by the mosquitoes, especially for a blogger with a large audience. Before Good&Happy, I didn't realize how much of one's persona is necessarily exposed to the world by blogging. Not to mention the intention and semi-responsibility to post regularly. It's a pleasure, and I can see how it might become not-one. And that doesn't mean we must "be nice." What a dreary thought! But, as the French teach their children, "be wise." About the consequences of our interactions. Don't drive off such resources as, with care, might be sustained.

Thank you, Steven Den Beste. I believe bloggers kept US readers honest and informed (or more nearly honest and significantly better-informed) at a point in history where we'd like to try to get it right. At this site we operate in a different, non-political arena for the most part, but keep scanning the horizon like everyone else. Thanks, Steven, you've helped interpret the signals.

http://goodandhappy.typepad.com/g_as_in_good_h_as_in_happ/2004/12/comments.html

Posted by: Dilys D. at December 21, 2004 05:44 PM Permalink

Comment:

Dear Steven,

I read USS Clueless since 2001 and miss it a lot. I wrote you a few emails, which I guess were not too annoying, since you sent me detailed, meaningful responses.

I wish there were something we could do about your illness... but if not, then I just wish you happiness and satisfaction.

--Skep

Posted by: Skep at December 21, 2004 05:44 PM Permalink

Comment:

I am reading Bill Whittle's book "Silent America" and in his Magic essay he makes tribute to Steven Den Beste for "talking about how people think-no, more than that. He was talking about what thought is".

Thank you Steven Den Beste for sharing your enlightened world to us, for you opened our minds to unlimited possibilities of hope.

Posted by: syn at December 21, 2004 05:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

I am ashamed of myself for not telling DenBeste how much I enjoyed his writing while he was still doing it.

Posted by: Hondo at December 21, 2004 05:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven Den Beste died for your sins

Posted by: Scott at December 21, 2004 05:48 PM Permalink

Comment:

Every single person who's written Steven an ankle-biting email should hang their heads low. That includes you turds in this comment forum - just can't resist getting one last barb in, can you? Your vanity is staggering.

Tripe aside, thank you Steven. Not that you're reading this, but the blogosphere truly has lost one of its most memorable essayists.

Posted by: fat kid at December 21, 2004 05:51 PM Permalink

Comment:

I have missed you, too. You had a way of blue-sky thinking that pulled together different threads and thoughts, and then delved down deeper into the past and further into the future than I have ever been able to on my own, but when in reading you, it all seemed so logical and certain. Certainty is comforting.

A suggestion that has occurred in the past little bit is that you might want to work with blogs like Belmont Club on how to filter out trolls. LGF seems to be pretty good at it, but folks like Wretchard who aren't techies don't have the time or the technique to keep out the disrupters.

You know yourself how destructive the disrupters are, and it would be a different sort of project for you that speaks to your strengths.

For the record, I had wondered to myself why you had no job and lived apparently idly in sunny SoCal. I decided you were either living off the profits of a really good patent, or had some sort of disability. You might want to consider if you don't want to reach out to the world, allowing the world to come to you in carefully meted out bits and pieces. I *do* think you have something left to give, and I'm pretty sure we have something to give back to you, if allowed. Wishing you the best of a warm and good future.

Posted by: NahnCee at December 21, 2004 05:51 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I read U.S.S. Clueless often. My brother (a so-called liberal) and I (a so-called conservative) found out we agree about most big issues due in part to your essays. And despite risking neck injury from nodding my head, I don’t recall sending you a note of thanks. For that I apologize. For all of the great articles, perceptive points and fearless logic, I now offer my sincere gratitude. You do whatever it is that makes you happy.

Posted by: inkling at December 21, 2004 05:53 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I'm one of the readers guilty of not sending an e-mail telling you how much I enjoyed your posts, mostly because I thought another 'me, too' post would bore you. Wish I'd known sooner how off the mark I was.

Thank you for what you shared, and as you said it helped clarify comlex issues and thinking during the worst parts of the last few years. I wish you all the best dealing with the health problems.

Posted by: Retread at December 21, 2004 05:56 PM Permalink

Comment:

SDB, I loved your writing and the ideas it expressed. Your site was the first I visited every day. I only wish that I had sent you kudos more often. Of course its not worth the price you paid and continue to pay. Best wishes. Today is the solstice. I hope that your health improves with the daylight.

Posted by: Jason at December 21, 2004 05:57 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you! I'm one of the readers who never wrote to thank you, but THANK YOU! I write essays, and they're nowhere near as good as yours, but then, your example helped me set a goal. I'm ever grateful.

Posted by: Eric Scheie at December 21, 2004 05:57 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thank you for the precision of your thought. There were times when I would read your posts and marvel at the intellectual craftsmanship of your arguments.

The circumstances of your retirement remind me of a brilliant old professor of constitutional law I had in law school. He was someone you had to listen to very carefully when he lectured because he would state things in precise ways. He was also the toughest grader at the law school.

I had lunch with him one day, and we started talking about what it was like to teach. He said he loved it. Loved the students, the subject, the intellectual stimulation. I asked him what he didn't like. He said there was only one thing -- he didn't like to grade tests. He said, with utter sincerity, "After a semester of teaching, it is disappointing to see how little they learned."

While I may not have always learned as much as I could or should have from your posts, I certainly learned a lot. U.S.S. Clueless had a real influence and raised the generally superficial and rhetorical level of political conversation on the web (even if it didn't have that effect on your email correspondents).

Thank you again. I wish you all the best.

Posted by: Kurt at December 21, 2004 06:14 PM Permalink

Comment:

Folks, It's called Engineering and the best Engineers are indeed Artists. SDB was able to make the "golden thread" of logic and reason and extrapolate it into unusual realms (for Engineers, that is). His method was so incredably compelling to me. He helped me find myself. I will miss him. Like losing a friend.

I don't care if he doesn't like platitudes and even if he's an atheist- God Bless You, Steven.

Longtime SDB Reader and Huge Fan - DW

Posted by: Formerly Frank at December 21, 2004 06:16 PM Permalink

Comment:

Just chiming in to express thanks for SDB. Miss you. And -- while I realize you think it's a waste of my time -- I'll pray you be comforted in your affliction.

Posted by: pouncer at December 21, 2004 06:16 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks from me too, Steven. I hope your archives and "Essential Reading Library" are always available to the intellectually curious. Entire university courses should be devoted to your thoughts and the thoughts of your featured essayists.

Posted by: Rene at December 21, 2004 06:27 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Stephen. Nuff said.

Posted by: Earl at December 21, 2004 06:32 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I really don't have anything to add. You were my homepage for almost two years.

Thanks.

Posted by: Brock at December 21, 2004 06:33 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I regret never telling you how much I admired and treasured your work. All I can say is that I've saved much of it to pass along to my kids whenever they ask me to explain something you have already, comprehensively and intelligently, covered.

I'm sorry (for myself) that you cannot continue but I'm grateful for having been given access to at least some of your wonderful insights. Yours was a great gift to me (as well as many others).
Thank you.

Posted by: jag at December 21, 2004 06:38 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, SDB.

Posted by: pianoman at December 21, 2004 06:42 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thank you for all your hard work and I wish you happiness and inner peace. Your essays were used a launch pad for discussions while attending Command General Staff Course for the US Army. Your logic was unassailable. First class work was the most common comment heard.

Thank you,
Bob

Posted by: Bob at December 21, 2004 06:46 PM Permalink

Comment:

Everyone needs to find someone to look at the big picture (I call it 30,000 foot view) In our world of instant news, instant analysis and instant heros, we do not take enough time to look at the current situation in historical context.

SDB did that for me and I am grateful. Sometimes we hope that a free service will last forever. Little do we know how much it costs.

Thank you SDB for what you insights. Also, thank you for showing courage in stopping writing and not just following the crowd.

You are missed, but are not forgotten. You have left a mark on all of us. That will be your legacy, revel in it.

You have been in my prayers. Thanks.

Posted by: Tim Gannon at December 21, 2004 06:47 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

You are one among very few people who have impacted my life. Thank you!

Posted by: joshlbetts at December 21, 2004 06:48 PM Permalink

Comment:

Well hell, Steven - now I feel guilty. I read you for years - and I never emailed. I agreed with most everything you posted about on politics and foreign policy - and on the rare occasion when I thought I disagreed, I figured it was because I didn't fully understand the subject (seriously - your posts were rather intimidating) . I found the history posts fascinating and enlightening and fun to read (and not so intimidating, as I have a much surer grasp of history than of foreign policy). As for the scientific/technical stuff, it went so far over my head I would've needed satellites to track it but sometimes I'd read it just for fun and then think "Huh. Wonder what that was about..."

You're in my thoughts and prayers as you deal with your condition.

Posted by: Stubby at December 21, 2004 06:48 PM Permalink

Comment:

Wow -- I really like the idea of the Den Beste award. Maybe for the blogger who's pioneered something new? Most innovative blogger? Strongest voice? Best analysis?

SDB could have won in any of those, btw.

Posted by: Dan W at December 21, 2004 06:49 PM Permalink

Comment:

One of those guilty of asking, demanding even, that you please come back and write for us again. Boy do I feel crappy now.

/Salute and Thank You/

Your impact on the blogsphere may be far greater than you imagine, sir.

Posted by: ubu at December 21, 2004 06:50 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Mr. DenBeste. I always enjoyed your writing. You were at the right place at the right time.

Posted by: Mikey at December 21, 2004 06:50 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, thanks for being so very kind to me in the past. Your work is an encouragement, and as I delve deeper into the anime world I know I'll have a solid guidepost past Noir and Cowboy Bebop.

Posted by: Pete Peterson at December 21, 2004 06:55 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I must say with regret, that I should have written you more often to thank you for your inspiration. What little I did was not enough. Please accept my sympathies for your condition, and remember that USS Clueless was always, and will be, a font of essay-wisdom for me.

Thank you very much

Posted by: Suman Palit at December 21, 2004 06:56 PM Permalink

Comment:

If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't necessary. Do you think anyone who runs a site gets 80% "pat-on-the-back" emails? People send emails, make comments, etc., when they have a case to make, an argument to put forth. Granted, those who do so only for the purpose of being nasty and hateful really shouldn't bother...
But it's no surprise to me that SDB got such treatment. It should have always been expected and if I put myself out there I would expect the same.

Now, having said that, there is no reason anyone should criticize SDB for quitting or turning his back on USS Clueless. He is not and never was obligated to maintain it. It always was merely an outlet for him, for whatever reason, and we should just be grateful for him putting as much work into it as he did. Kudos to SDB and I hope to find more people out there who selfishly and selflessly post such content.

Posted by: josh at December 21, 2004 06:57 PM Permalink

Comment:

You were not only the template from which the essay-blogger arose, you continued to be among the very best of them for the entire time you wrote. Wretchard, Spengler, Nelson Ascher, Victor Davis Hanson, Michael J. Totten, Roger L. Simon, Donald Sensing, Daniel W. Drezner, David Warren, Ed Morrissey, Bill Whittle, James A. Lileks, and many others owe you more than they can ever repay, as do we all.
I submit that future Weblog Awards in the Best Essayist category should be entitled Den Beste Awards, for you almost singlehandedly defined the genre, and are largely responsible for not only its existence, but also its excellence.

With Great Respect,

Joe E. Dees

Posted by: Joe E. Dees at December 21, 2004 07:04 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Steven. You gave me clarity when the world was too damn chaotic.

After the attacks of 9/11, I wondered in what direction America had to take to defeat this evil. You made me understand.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Posted by: Verdun at December 21, 2004 07:06 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

No platitudes, no complaints.

Just "Thanks", and "Good luck".

Posted by: D.A. Neill at December 21, 2004 07:08 PM Permalink

Comment:

I must say I was one of the ankle biters. (JFETs among other subjects).

Steve and I carried on a number of conversations over those magic years. I'm honored to have been one of those fortunate enough to have been engaged by Steve in several conversations.

The war is well in hand Steve thanks to your marvelous efforts. It was Belmont Club (frequently refrenced by Steve) that got me started blogging. Which makes you my blog father once removed.

:-)

Thanks.

Posted by: M. Simon at December 21, 2004 07:14 PM Permalink

Comment:

Well, you'd have to class me among the "ankle-biters" among SDB's admirers, because I rarely wrote unless I had something to contribute. Sometimes this was in the form of a correction or disagreement; just as often it was an extension of his thought beyond where he had (publicly) taken it. My only justification for omitting general kudos was that, being well aware of the volume of email he was getting, I certainly didn't want to add to it with a bunch of AOL-style "me too!" messages.

But let me just turn AOL mode on for a moment, and in response to all the kind words and thanks being expressed here, add

ME TOO!

Posted by: Kirk Parker at December 21, 2004 07:14 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Mr. Den Beste

Posted by: Scott Kirwin at December 21, 2004 07:23 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I visited your site quite often and I'm not ashamed to admit that a lot of the more cerebral stuff did a fly by on me. I wish you the best.

Posted by: Rob at December 21, 2004 07:23 PM Permalink

Comment:

Hmmm.

I've often enjoyed reading SDB's blog. I only wrote him once or twice because those were both the only times I thought I had anything relevant to say and because I figured he was being overwhelmed by messages anyways. I'm sorry to say that I've never once considered sending an "atta boy" message to SDB because I figured it would add even more email to his workload and that my continuously visiting his site would reflect my opinions directly.

I'm sorry to hear about SDB's medical problems, I have some serious ones of my own, and the lack of fun he had in blogging. I would hope that SDB would look at his site statistics and realize that however many critics he might have had, he had a lot more fans.

Posted by: ed at December 21, 2004 07:23 PM Permalink

Comment:

USS Clueless has sailed its last voyage, from the grey havens, across the sea and into the West.

Posted by: rumpy doppelganger at December 21, 2004 07:23 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you. Thank you for your writing, for your thought, for linking to me, and for all you did. Thank you.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at December 21, 2004 07:29 PM Permalink

Comment:

You were the best thing that has appeared in the blogosphere. No-one, not anyone, made posts as good as those of Steven C. DenBeste.
Thousands of us miss it badly. And we're sorry about the assholes.

Posted by: lwaldron at December 21, 2004 07:30 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you, Steven. It was greatly due to your writing that I understood as best as I could the war on terror, and more precisely the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Trevor at December 21, 2004 07:32 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Steven for your great work. You and Lileks helped get me addicted to bloggers, and my knowledge has expanded exponentially as a result.

I never was able to get "into" history and politics before, but after 9/11 I knew I had to. And I'm glad I had a kindred spirit to help guide me.

Posted by: silvermine at December 21, 2004 07:41 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you, Steven Den Beste, for your contributions to public discourse, contributions I can never hope to match.

Posted by: Tex the Pontificator at December 21, 2004 07:42 PM Permalink

Comment:

OK. I am guilty. I was an "ankle biter" sine quo non. The reason: Stephen was the only major blog writer who ever *wrote me back*! Glenn never did it and, I guess, couldn't have because of his traffic and because it wasn't Glenn's style to philosophize as much as Stephen. Andrew Sullivan never wrote me back although I sent at least 100 emails to him since 9-11...but Andrew should have because I am a lot smarter than that turncoat and he could have learned something if he bothered to correspond. Andrew is the only blogger who seems to have gotten less mature and wise since 9-11. Stephen was the best because he taught me the main reason for the Iraq War: reversing the power structure in the Middle East from Sunni to Shiite dominance.

Anyway, I haven't stated why I was an ankle biter with Stephen. The answer: he insisted that conservatives have to pretend that the USA *lost* the Vietnam War in order to maintain credibility with liberals. Never mind that Nixon/Kissinger split the Comintern and, thus, won the Indochina War strategically.

I considered that topic big enough to ankle-bite. I ankle-bit the Bush 2004 Reelection Campaign on the same subject. I still believe that the Republicans have to stop allowing the Dems to have the "We lost the Vietnam War" meme.

Meanwhile, I owe the biggest "THANK YOU" to Stephen for having explained the war on terror to me in a way that noone else has, including Rumsfeld and Debka. I would say that the Belmont Club is the closest replacement for Stephen.

Posted by: Allen MacDonald at December 21, 2004 07:48 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you, Steven. I have greatly missed your writing, which had a profound and positive effect on me.

Jamie Irons

Jamie Irons

Posted by: Jamie Irons at December 21, 2004 07:49 PM Permalink

Comment:

Absolutely stunning, iconoclastic mind. Steven, we were lucky to have you while we did. You'll be missed. Many thanks.

Posted by: piross at December 21, 2004 07:51 PM Permalink

Comment:

Sorry, somehow I signed my name twice in signing off.

;-(

Jamie Irons

Posted by: Jamie Irons at December 21, 2004 07:53 PM Permalink

Comment:

I began reading blogs about a year ago when I discovered DenBeste. I have checked his blog daily, even since he has stopped blogging, and have read everything in his archeives. I like what he wrote, I appriciate his opinions and am in awe of the clairity of logic and expression. As an engineer, I am inspired by his ability to bring systems engineering techniques to the analysis of government, politics, war and the use of technology.
There are other sites that are excellent but his remains at the top of my list. Informative, entertaining, and inspirational on many levels.

Still. At. The. Top.
Roark

Posted by: Roark Doubt at December 21, 2004 07:55 PM Permalink

Comment:

Den Beste was one of the best writers on the web, intellectually engaging and thorough, idealistic, while undeluded. He is much missed

Posted by: Brett at December 21, 2004 07:56 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Mr. Den Beste. I read your site every day while you were posting. I never sent an email thanking you (or ankle-biting). I hope you read this and know how much I enjoyed your writing, and how much I learned.

Best of luck.

Posted by: EricO at December 21, 2004 07:56 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven: If love is sacrifice, then you have truly loved your country. I hope many more people in the future will get the chance to enjoy the vast archive you left.
As a non-American, I enjoyed your work often, but sadly never told you. I think I felt that it was out of my league to comment on. Yet the traffic volume you earned tells another story--a great number of people enjoyed all your work.
That you forced your genius out through a medium (writing) that was clearly not you own, speaks volumes about the effort and passion you gave to your ideas. That fact was not lost on many.
Possibly a Solzhenitsyn for our times?

Good luck--James

Posted by: James at December 21, 2004 07:56 PM Permalink

Comment:

I think it warrants noting that www.davidwarrenonline.com and http://belmontclub.blogspot.com were my replacements for denbeste.nu. The first blog I read every day is still www.debka.com of course. Then I do Freerepublic and Instapundit and maybe Drudge and Spiegel (German site).

Posted by: Allen MacDonald at December 21, 2004 07:57 PM Permalink

Comment:

Now about that idea I had way back when about using standard projectile weapons on spacecraft; I @#$^3*POW*#^#%WHAMMO$%^*OOOF*(^%%Never mind....Thanks though ;)

Posted by: JSAllison at December 21, 2004 08:01 PM Permalink

Comment:

Never pitied you.

Envied, yes. Pitied, no.

I enjoyed your writing and felt a bit put out when you no longer had your essays. Without food for thought I would starve.

If you're not there, I guess I can either go hungry or start doing the cooking myself.

Posted by: GW Crawford at December 21, 2004 08:02 PM Permalink

Comment:

Gee Steve, I didn't even guess at the underlying situation that led you to drop political blogging. I feel somewhat taken aback.

Steve, after you resigned from blogging I yearned to send you a short note thanking you for all you have done. I didn’t because you had made it clear that your emails had become more than you could take and—it seemed to me—that you probably valued my email silence more than fan mail.

For what it's worth, I can only offer a heartfelt genuflection in your general direction for your superb work. You're the main inspiration that caused me to start my own essay blog. Not that my blog is comparable to yours; your work is at that ethereal level that I can only inspire to.

Regarding the idea of a Den Beste award for excellence (I suggest that the award be limited to political essayists): Excellent idea!

All the best Steve. Continue taking care of your self, you will be in my thoughts.

Posted by: john - The Imperial Heavy Artillery at December 21, 2004 08:04 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you for saving me the need for my daily fix aboard the good ship clueless (...I still have the need... oh well.) Now go buy that submarine.

Posted by: ken anthony at December 21, 2004 08:09 PM Permalink

Comment:

I haven't felt this choked up since the death of Princess Di.

Posted by: Udolpho at December 21, 2004 08:13 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Steven for everything you have done and written and all you have endured while you could to continue.

Posted by: Starhawk at December 21, 2004 08:15 PM Permalink

Comment:

Den Beste was the Sandy Koufax of the blog world. A high level of excellent performance which came to a close earlier than his fans desired.

And everything he gave us was a gift. He owes us absolutely nothing. We owe him plenty.

---Tom Nally, New Orleans

Posted by: Tom Nally at December 21, 2004 08:20 PM Permalink

Comment:

I once wrote Steven a very short little e-mail about how my great-grandfather fit his description of a European who had American ideals embedded in his genes (or something like that).

That simple little missive turned out to provide fodder for one of Steven's long essays . . . one about the political/geographical make up of Europe in the late 1800s, early 1900s.

I knew he didn't like platitudes, even back then (he'd often made mention of that fact), so I didn't write anything back, except maybe to say, "thanks." Can't really remember. It's been well over a year, maybe two, after all. If I didn't, well, hey Steven . . . "Thanks." Take it as a platitude . . . or not.

You know something? I still have the permalink to that essay on my desktop.

Excuse me, while I click on that link again.

Posted by: Brian Kuhn at December 21, 2004 08:32 PM Permalink

Comment:

At least now I know I need to download his collected works from his site, since I don't know when I'm going to come across an essayist as insightful and as persuasive as SDB.

I speak from long experience as a reader, a writer and a journalist. Steven Den Beste at his prime was better than George Will. Better than William Safire. Better than Pulitzer-Prize winner Maureen Dowd (that should go without saying). He's as good as Mencken. Higher praise I cannot say.

Posted by: Bill Peschel at December 21, 2004 08:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

Many thanks to the Captain of the USS CLueless: it was a ship I boarded every day with great appreciation even though I never sent an email. In fact, the slow way my computer brought it up was the main reason why I upgraded. I was never into anime, but I delighted in all of the other essays, especially those dealing with the present in the light of history.
Gratefully yours, Bill Brown

Posted by: Bill Brown at December 21, 2004 08:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

Many thanks to the Captain of the USS CLueless: it was a ship I boarded every day with great appreciation even though I never sent an email. In fact, the slow way my computer brought it up was the main reason why I upgraded. I was never into anime, but I delighted in all of the other essays, especially those dealing with the present in the light of history.
Gratefully yours,
Bill Brown

Posted by: Bill Brown at December 21, 2004 08:46 PM Permalink

Comment:

"Me too"

It seems like the greatest minds end up in the frailest bodies.

Posted by: Doug Oosting at December 21, 2004 08:53 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I've heard once that the best time to plant a tree was 50 years ago. The second best time is now. So since I did nothing in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 I’d better do it now:

Thank you for all your work. I’ve always enjoyed your thinking and writing but I’ve never written back. I still wonder how you could have produced so much quality on a regular basis. I suspect there are many of us out here who did not want to worsen your remarkable workload by our own ruminations.

Respectfully,

Pavel Bouska

Posted by: Pavel Bouska at December 21, 2004 08:54 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, thank you. It's no exaggeration to say that you changed my life in a major way. I went on from that to try to maybe impact other lives, by starting a blog, getting involved in politics, donating to charities, and talking to my neighbors. All things I never much did before. So your work really mattered, to me and perhaps by extension to others. Your stones made many ripples.

I wrote a couple of times, just to say thanks and to point out a blogpost that was inspired by one of yours. But I tried not to bug you, because I got the hint that you didn't want to be bugged.

Well this time, buddy, you're getting bugged by all of us in this thread. You've gotta let us love you; you have no choice this once.

Thank You Steven, and may God bless and keep you.

Posted by: DSmith at December 21, 2004 09:01 PM Permalink

Comment:

I wrote to say thanks only once. I wish I had written more. SDB is one of the true greats.

Posted by: andrewdb at December 21, 2004 09:06 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven Den Beste only received one Seppomail, when he announced USS Clueless was coming to an end. I wrote to express my thanks for his many exceptional contributions.

In retrospect I was remiss for not frequently sending notes of gratitude and encouragement, but it did not occur to me at the time.

It would have seemed like thanking Johnny Cash for being Johnny Cash, or Peter Drucker for sharing his thoughts, or thanks David Eisenhower for your grandfather's Interstate highway system... just seemed too obvious, and likely to be lost in the cacaphony of multitudes of admirers.

Thanks, Steven, and best wishes.

Posted by: Seppo at December 21, 2004 09:13 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thank your for all those great essays. I never wrote a mail to thank you for them, mainly because your frequent use of the 'DWL' disclaimer and I thought you were already swamped in mail. You were one of the reasons I started blogging. Anyway, good luck and good health to you!

Maarten

Posted by: Maarten Schenk at December 21, 2004 09:15 PM Permalink

Comment:

Dang it. I never wrote to say thank you as I thought it was unwanted based on what I had read on the subject of emails. I was afraid to ripple the pool with even a compliment.

Even now I'm not certain, but I am going to err on the side of action this time.

Thank You SDB.

Posted by: Robert at December 21, 2004 09:16 PM Permalink

Comment:

I agree with everything said above; good luck to you, Steven.

Posted by: akaky at December 21, 2004 09:17 PM Permalink

Comment:

>Well, you'd have to class me among the "ankle-
>biters"...I rarely wrote unless I had something
>to contribute...My only justification for
>omitting general kudos was that, being well
>aware of the volume of email he was getting, I
>certainly didn't want to add to it with a bunch
>of AOL-style "me too!" messages.

Quoted for truth. I figured that SDB's attitude towards frivolous feedback was made clear back when he eighty-sixed his message board.

Anyway, it is sad to hear that Steven Den Beste will now be permanently Shorter.

Posted by: DensityDuck at December 21, 2004 09:22 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thanks for your inspiration, your essays, your intellectual rigor. Our one brief exchange in no way expressed how much I appreciated your public expression of ideas and the processes that lead to them.

With thanks,
Michael

Posted by: Michael Walsh at December 21, 2004 09:22 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thank you for the beauty you brought into this world, like a single teardrop from the eye of an eagle. For a long time USS Clueless was indeed the only thing keeping me going through having both legs amputated at the knee after a skiing mishap to having it revealed on my 36th birthday that my parents were imposters. Always your well-reasoned essays gave me a reason to continue, no matter how bad it got. I feel closer to you than I have felt to anyone, even God. If you are reading this I think you know where this is leading. You are the People's Pundit.

Posted by: Melvin Statler at December 21, 2004 09:28 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, you made an impact on public debate better than a hatful of MSM big shots. Several of your essays framed my own incoherent thoughts about the War On Terror. I am really taken aback to hear about your situation. Good luck in your future endeavours. Best of luck from old London towne.

Johnathan Pearce, Samizdata.net

Posted by: Johnathan Pearce at December 21, 2004 09:35 PM Permalink

Comment:

SDB was one of the greats, and still is. I used to wake up every morning hoping there would be a new essay.

It's a shame that ankle-biting mail made SDB so cranky - I assume that most of the mail was repetitive and boring, but SDB's writing style and topics encouraged us all to get engaged, and mailing our ideas, however silly, to SDB was probably a side effect. That said, he was working for free, and had every right to be cranky.

Anyway, best wishes, Steven. I can't know what you're going through, but I hope things get better, and I'm grateful for the work you did.

Posted by: J Mann at December 21, 2004 09:38 PM Permalink

Comment:

USS Clueless was one of my first and favorite blogs. I loved reading your detailed essays Steven (you are a fantastic writer by the way) but never emailed to tell you as much. Funny... I assumed you were deluged with at least as much fan mail as critical mail. So here's a hearty THANK YOU and I wish you the very best.
Sincerely,
Sara

Posted by: Akane at December 21, 2004 09:48 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks for everything, Mr. Den Beste. Enjoy your "retirement".

Posted by: cleve at December 21, 2004 09:52 PM Permalink

Comment:

Like many others above, I also silently appreciated your wordsmithing and careful crafting of your essays. I appreciate how much it cost you, as anything of value must have some price.

I have never thanked you for your work, although I have printed it out and forced it on friends and peers, many of who deeply appreciated your logic.

I wish having fame didn't come with the burden of societal disagreement, and like others here, I do not appreciate the disagreements robbing the voices of discourse.

Posted by: MBarker at December 21, 2004 09:55 PM Permalink

Comment:

Mr Den Beste,

Your essays were an adornment to civilisation.

Thank You

Posted by: Peter at December 21, 2004 10:00 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven:

I have been inspired by many of your posts, entertained and educated by all of them (with the limited exception of the anime ones, but that's just taste), benefitted from links from USS Clueless, and at least I have the comfort of knowing that I have sung praises to you prior to now.

Having said that, I am diminished by this news. Damn. I, too, am an atheist, but you have at a minimum my best wishes and hopes.

Posted by: Kevin Baker at December 21, 2004 10:00 PM Permalink

Comment:

Dear Mr. Den Beste --

Your essays were a constant inspiration and reproach. "Inspiration" is obvious -- nowhere on the web (until the advent of Wretchard) was there so thoughtful and perspective an analyst. "Reproach", because I felt like a slug because I couldn't toss off a 5000-word, perfectly written, cogent, fact-filled, penetrating analysis of military strategy, logic, philosophy, or current events every day or so.

I will miss you. Thanks for everything.

Posted by: Paul Cashman at December 21, 2004 10:16 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, if you read this, know one thing. I think you're the smartest guy I've never met. Good luck in your future.

EZ

Posted by: Easycure at December 21, 2004 10:16 PM Permalink

Comment:

I've always enjoyed SDB's writing, especially his well-reasoned science and engineering insights into topics-of-the-day, often deflating an elitist pontification.

fyi, I've been very impressed by the alternate PC input and output mechanisms that are available and quickly improving. I have some elderly friends that swear by audio output (and several use audio input). They convinced me to start using the XP/MS-Office-add-ins/Acrobat text-to-speech options, and I find that I'm able to multi-task some physical activity w/ listening to articles that I've queued up for later reading. And the dictation tools are much better today than they were when I first tried them 3-4 years ago.

I can imagine a day within 20 years when we get Pournelle-class implants ("Oath of Fealty"), and as long as I can think, I'll be able to live on the net (protein being what it is, v. silicon).

Best wishes to Steve and those he cares about. It used to be the only durable monument to the average life was our children. But now our intellect as written (and spoken) has the opportunity to live forever, based on merit (rather than the chance of being published or being photogenic). Steve's efforts will place him high on this decade's, if not century's, list.

Posted by: Ari Tai at December 21, 2004 10:17 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

More than anyone else in the "media", I believe you are responsible for correctly framing our understanding of this current war.

We are all indebted to you.

Posted by: Roger Taylor at December 21, 2004 10:32 PM Permalink

Comment:

SDB is, without limitation, one of my favorite writers. Along with a keen political mind and clear writing style, he brings an underlying practicality to whatever he writes. Maybe it is the engineer in him, but although the ideals that he cherishes always came through, his analysis is always firmly grounded in the world as it is. He is what politicians should be.

The contrast between his practicality and his love of anime always struck me as an interesting and endearing juxtoposition.

Also, his ability to make to make connections between seemingly unconnected events always brought to mind another of my favorite essayists, Stephen J. Gould. That is one reason I particularly loved SDB's Burgess Shale 4 part essay. I haven't been as dismayed at the loss of a voice since Gould's death.

I still check his website at least twice a week hoping for an update. I guess, with great sadness, I will stop now.

Thanks for the enjoyment and education you have provided me.

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2004 10:32 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, SDB. Your blog was among the very, very best.

Posted by: me at December 21, 2004 10:42 PM Permalink

Comment:

Someone mentioned having Bill Whittle edit a book of SDB's.

That would be awesome -- I've been wanting to buy and give out copies of Steven's writings for years now.

Anyone have any ideas on getting this off the ground (plus getting SDB some wel deserved $$$)?

Posted by: Roger Taylor at December 21, 2004 10:46 PM Permalink

Comment:

I suspect, for most of the anklebiters, the sensation of (or at least the perception of) scoring rhetorical points on a man of the intellectual caliber of SDB, is similar to the boy that daydreams of striking out Barry Bonds on 3 fastballs, or a chess hacker beating Kasparov or Fischer at chess. Like climbing Everest. Thanks Steven, for the understanding you brought us, and best of luck in all that lies ahead.

Posted by: bad elvin at December 21, 2004 10:55 PM Permalink

Comment:

SDB was the reason I started my blog. He ironically shaped my philosophy while I was getting a BA in Philosophy (of course, this was after after getting my electrical engineering degree). I read through the old material regularly and will always treasure his responses to my questions about causality.

Jake

Posted by: Jake Odell at December 21, 2004 11:05 PM Permalink

Comment:

thanks steven,
could be the intimidation many of us felt when faced with such an intellectual giant. i would have written to say thanks every day, but you weren't looking for gratitude. i could've praised your posts, god knows most all of them deserved to be actively praised. they had a structure of knowledge, an engine of logic, an eye for detail, vision for context, and you somehow populated it with passion. not many people can get passion and logic into the same room, much less get them to dance.
you were there for us in some tough times, we miss your talent and your voice. but it was great that we had them when we did.
hope that doesn't sound too syrupy, wish you all the best.
alan

Posted by: alan b true at December 21, 2004 11:11 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you SDB!

I only wrote one thank you - and then felt guilty about that one as shortly afterwards, he posted a message talking about how innundated he was with e-mail and while he appreciated the positive comments, he hated looking at all of it and felt obligated to respond. I recall sending one 'NO NEED TO RESPOND - GREAT POST!' subjected blank message, but then felt guilty about it. :-)

He is and was a phenominal writer and is still bookmarked as one of my resources. Gods forbid that he ever take down the archives!

Thank you Mr. Den Beste, for all you've done.

Orion

Posted by: Orion at December 21, 2004 11:14 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thank you for your posts! I am one of the silent, one who stayed away, one who didn't tell you I really appreciated your work. Thanks again!

Melvin Statler,

As a survivor of a parental suicide, my heart jumped into my throat when I saw your comment "to having it revealed on my 36th birthday that
my parents were imposters".

Very, very few things turn your world upside-down quite like having a parent do something insane. You chose not to elaborate, and I understsnd. Still, you have my thoughts and prayers...

Posted by: PSGInfinity at December 21, 2004 11:17 PM Permalink

Comment:

Looking back on your posts I can see the difficulty and pain coming through towards the end. I remember that reading the last couple of months was like reading someone with a voice who just didn't like it any more.

I'm glad you could write what you did, when you did; I'd buy that book; and I'd go to a lecture.

Most importantly I will continue to draw from the Essential Library and insist despite your protests that what you did was important.

Thanks.

Posted by: Chap at December 21, 2004 11:40 PM Permalink

Comment:

On two occasions I sent you a comment, once to point out a factual error once to offer a comment on a historical point you made on the engineering process and ask you for your view. I checked the email and note that in both cases I told you that I enjoyed your writing immensely.

My enjoyment of your writing rather misses the point that you've made a difference to thousands of people. You've changed minds or opened them to the possibilty of change neither is easy.

In an era where critical thinking has become untaught and the subject of derision, you have educated thousands to its value. Through its use you have demonstrated its power. Quite an achievement in this politically correct world of out come based educators.

You wrote for your own purposes. Thank you. You wrote to make a difference in a desperate and dark time. Know that you did make a difference. You gave of yourself until you could give no more. Thank you again for your service, you are a rare man of honor in the best sense of that word.

Good bye Mr. Den Beste you will continue to be missed.

Posted by: Fred at December 21, 2004 11:43 PM Permalink

Comment:

Came here from Glenn's place to add my thanks to the list. I'm always happy to see SDB 'round the 'Burg and hope you still drop in from time to time.

Posted by: Seafarious at December 21, 2004 11:46 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Wow. I knew that dealing with all the mail was taking a toll on you, but this... I'm not really sure what to say here. I've never e-mailed you with either criticsim or praise, precisely because I didn't want to add to the massive volume of mail you had to sift through every day. But like so many already have, I can't let this go without adding my own thank-you for the impact you've had.

I started my Excellent Adventure in the blogosphere around late 2002, reading the likes of Atrios, Josh Marshall and Billmon. While these guys were a pretty good reinforcement of my political prejudices at the time, after a while I found myself looking for something a little more challenging. I stumbled across Bill Whittle's site one day, then from there link-hopped over to the USS Clueless. After reading a couple of SDB's posts, I bookmarked the page and it stayed on my regular reads from then on.

I didn't agree with most of what Steven said right away, but I immediately recognized him as a smart guy who had plainly done a lot of serious thinking about the issue he wrote on. I also enjoyed his lucid and no-bullshit style and found his essays easy to read despite their length. As time went on and I made my way through his archives, I found the way I percieved political events changing; it was like getting a bird's-eye view of things after years of life as a midget. With the broader perspective SDB's writing provided me (and many others I'm sure), I found myself drawn inexorably around to agreeing with him on many things. He's the man who singlehandedly brought me around from being vehemently anti-Iraq war to being trepidaciously supportive to being confidently supportive, all in the space of a few months.

I never came to agree with SDB about everything of course, but even when I didn't he was always worth reading for the perspective and insights he brought to the table. He helped move me along the road from thinking myopically toward "thinking horizontally" -- and Thomas Barnett has moved me further still down that road where Steven left off. This is his gift to the blogosphere, and I'm extremely grateful to him for it.

Steven has earned his retirement, and I wish him as much comfort as possible for the remainder of his life. I'll respect his wishes and not gush out sympathy, though he does have my empathy inasmuch as this is possible. Thanks for sharing your mind with us all, Steve.

Posted by: Matt McIntosh at December 22, 2004 12:04 AM Permalink

Comment:

SDB-You led me to wonder and think and I value that most highly at this stage of the journey. Thank You.

Posted by: PWD at December 22, 2004 12:13 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, the insights and hard work put into your essays made them the most valued daily reading on the web for the few months after I discovered your blog.

It's a pity the silent majority rarely voice their opinion, but they do care, and they do keep coming back, day after day, as your hit counter & hosting provider can tell you.

Your essays on the "Three Way Struggle" was perhaps my favourite, especially helpful in understanding the warring stories broadcast by varying medias.

Thanks for your time.

Posted by: JPadfield at December 22, 2004 12:21 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, thanks for explaining how my phone works.

Posted by: B. Fan at December 22, 2004 12:34 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks Steven! Feel better or best that you can.

back in 2003, you gave me 15 minutes of fame posting the "grinch who stole quagmire" (my net contribution to the blogoshere outside initiating readers). I blew only an hour of my time and minimal brain cells jotting that down.

Given the depth and breadth of your work; I imagine you might have made lighter use of your free time; but as I hope all these accolades make you appreciate the impact of your insights to the "community of strangers", which is no doubt exponentially larger than the few who may happen upon this thread.

- Patrick

Posted by: Patrick at December 22, 2004 12:39 AM Permalink

Comment:

I didn't discover the "blogosphere" until recently. I followed a link into your site, and spent literally HOURS in the archives and re-reading the best-of's. I was disappointed to read "If you've been visiting regularly in hopes that I'll start making posts again, you may as well give up and stop. It's not going to happen." But thank you , Mr. Den Beste, for the posts you have given us already. Wishing the best for you.

Posted by: madm at December 22, 2004 12:54 AM Permalink

Comment:

For what it's worth I'd like to say thanks to SDB. His site was (and remains) a must-visit blog and it contributed a lot to making me blog in the first place. The fact that his detractors trended to rely on ad-hominem attacks against him is a major point in his favour.

He and I corresponded occasionally via email. Yes he was concise (he HAD to be with his volume) but he was always friendly and made good points.

It's hard not to sink into platitudes so I'll just say thanks for all the fish SDB. You're a damn good read.

cheers

Posted by: bargarz at December 22, 2004 12:56 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

After a while, all the comments start to look the same, so I guess the best I can do is to echo Pixy Misa, and say, "Crap, I had no idea", and "Thanks for all you've done".

Best wishes......

Posted by: Hale Adams at December 22, 2004 01:14 AM Permalink

Comment:

Stephen Den Best and ESR are the two people whose examples had the most to do with my own entry into blogging.  I lamented his departure, and now I have to resign myself to the fact that SDB's absense from the blogosphere is not a matter of frustration but of necessity.

Thanks for blazing the trail, Stephen.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at December 22, 2004 01:36 AM Permalink

Comment:

I posted my thanks on Nelson's page, and my own blog, but if there is a higher chance he can see this, I have to be a me-too too. Thank you Mr. Den Beste. You were a lighthouse along the rocky shores of the treacherous sea of world affairs. Thank you for your vision and clarity.

You will be missed.

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 22, 2004 01:52 AM Permalink

Comment:

Dear Mr. Den Beste,

I always enjoyed your postings. I wrote you once about the near presence of Midwestern isolationism in today's politics. You sent a response and I was thrilled and honored. Thank you so very much for your hard work and wonderful essays. I miss your insight. Again, thank you very much.

Gary M Kitts

Posted by: Gary Kitts at December 22, 2004 02:06 AM Permalink

Comment:

I'm another one who immensely enjoyed SDB's work and never bothered to write.

It seems to me having a comment section would have probably helped cut back on alot of the backbiting mail. Knowing that there are plenty of people who agree with you enough to debunk the naysayers on your forum has it's benefits. I'm also sure that SDB had his reasons for not having a comment section though and I respect that decision as well, I'm sure it was well thought out.

Thank you for all the informative and enlightening work Mr. Den Beste.

Posted by: Jon Davison at December 22, 2004 02:09 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Mr. Den Beste. My best to you, and you will remain in the thoughts of many this Christmas season for everything you have given to us over the past years.

D. Edgren

Posted by: D. Edgren at December 22, 2004 02:13 AM Permalink

Comment:

It's one of the great injustices in the world that people like SDB have to suffer to make their voices known in the wilderness, and that the unwashed masses have nothing better to do than tear them down, meanwhile people like "the smart one" contaminate blogs like mine with stupid, insulting, nitpicky, idiotic commentary utterly devoid of any useful content.

Why can't the assholes be the ones to get incurable illnesses that prevent them from cluttering up the internet with their trash?

My blog, like many, benefited from Mr. Den Beste's unabashed, informative and fascinating verbosity, not to mention his sharp intellect and incisive analysis. He sets the bar very high for people like me to reach, and frankly I like the challenge.

Blogs have become more than just the stream-of-consciousness LiveJournal ramblings of emo kids in pajamas. Steven made it acceptable for people to explore issues at length on a public forum, whether or not we choose to enable comments or read our fan mail. My blog has never enjoyed the level of traffic that USS Clueless did, but I'm proud to play host to a couple of ongoing flamewars.

Thanks, Steven. You made a difference.

Posted by: Anne Haight at December 22, 2004 02:31 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks Steven. If anyone's earned a retirement from blogging, you have. Thanks for a great body of well written stuff. Your site showed me what the blog medium is capable of, and will continue to inspire fine writers and essayists (Sp?).

So take care and enjoy. We'll all miss you.

Posted by: DC at December 22, 2004 02:35 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven: I would like to extend my most heartfelt thanks, too, for all that you gave us while you could. I remain to this day very happy that we corresponded and proud that on a few occasions -- once even a whole page! -- I managed to add to your stuff. Not a day goes by that I don't miss you, and I wish I could say thank you better than this. -- Thomas W. Briggs, Fort Worth, Texas

Posted by: Thomas W. Briggs at December 22, 2004 02:36 AM Permalink

Comment:

We learned a lot of new information about SDB from what he told us. We heard it from him. How can I put this? At some future point, we won't be hearing from him anymore. Is there some mechanism in place to let us know the final details, or will we eventually look back and realize he hasn't posted anywhere in several months? Let me be blunt, when he dies, I want to know. I want there to be some moment of recognition and appreciation, like a lot of what we've seen in these comments, rather than a fading memory. And for the rest of you bloggers, is there someone to let us know if something happens to you?

Posted by: Lord Floppington at December 22, 2004 03:18 AM Permalink

Comment:

Dear Steven Den Beste,

Thank you, Thank you, for all you wrote, and how well you wrote it. You have made a difference.

My thoughts are with you, Jim

Posted by: jim bourg at December 22, 2004 03:24 AM Permalink

Comment:

I'm sorry to hear this Steven. I've had a great deal of respect for you over all these years, and had figured that your retirement from blogging was for deep and personal reasons. Well, now I know. I wish all the best for you. Thanks for all you've done.

Posted by: Mike Trettel at December 22, 2004 03:24 AM Permalink

Comment:

Dear Steven Den Beste,

Thank you, Thank you, for all you wrote, and how well you wrote it. You made a difference.

My thoughts are with you, Jim

Posted by: jim bourg at December 22, 2004 03:27 AM Permalink

Comment:

Hello Captain:

I just want to wish you comfort and endurance. We have communicated several times but I may not have expressed my appreciation often enough nor strongly enough.

God bless you and keep you.

Posted by: Dean Douthat at December 22, 2004 03:32 AM Permalink

Comment:

I wish you the best. Your writing had been a pleasure to read.

Posted by: Zelda at December 22, 2004 03:41 AM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste: Thank you for your work. There are few men who have so consistently excelled in understanding the "fit" of things and fewer still who have been so lucid in explanation. I appreciated USS Clueless, and do miss reading it. I wish you the very best.

Posted by: Henry IX at December 22, 2004 03:43 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Steven, and, though I know you're an atheist, Godspeed.

Juliette (baldilocks)

Posted by: Juliette at December 22, 2004 03:52 AM Permalink

Comment:

I've said it twice before, but I'll gladly say it again: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. You were one of those who helped me to understand why I should be proud of my country, and proud of my President.

In one of my thank-yous (the other was about anime) I wrote:
===
I'm of liberal origins, yet have very reluctantly
become hawkish on WW IV. You're a good part of
the reason why. Most of my friends and family are
against the war, almost reflexively. In my email
conversations with them, I've referred to your
site often. Today, I included this at the bottom
of one of my emails:

"I've posted several links to Steven Den Beste's
web site, USS Clueless. I can't recommend him
enough. Even if you disagree with everything he
says, he's still a daily must-read, because ideas
that I first see discussed here consistently turn
up elsewhere, including much of what I've heard in
Bush's last two speeches.

"Refute Den Beste, and you've refuted the case for
the war. Why go anywhere else?"

Thanks for helping me to think clearly about the
most difficult political issue I've ever faced.
===

Well done, Steven. You did your share, and more than your share, at a crucial time under very trying circumstances.

Peace be with you.

And, yes, I'm glad I'm anime fan, since it lets me continue to enjoy your writing.

No response required, sir, now or ever. You've earned our words. It will be very hard indeed for us to earn yours.

Posted by: Dave Moore at December 22, 2004 03:54 AM Permalink

Comment:

THANK YOU SIR..From a reader of about a year,your Blog was the first one checked every day . Again.. THANK YOU.

Posted by: trab at December 22, 2004 04:07 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven - So many before me here have stated my thoughts, so tera-dittos. Thank you for the cogent thought, sharp writing and inspiration.

Please stay in touch by popping up in the blogosphere whenever there is something you feel we need to know. You have a lot of caring fans out here.

My best wishes for your future.

Dr. Bob (not even remotely a real doctor)

Posted by: Dr. Bob at December 22, 2004 04:13 AM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste, sorry about your physical condition and I certainly understand your retirement. You're a favorite of mine and I remember only once emailing you and was impressed that you took the time to respond to my question. Godspeed.

I'm puzzled by one thing. You describe up to 80% of your emails as being rude, disrespectful, etc. I can believe that. However, how many emails did you receive as a percentage of total site visits? Isn't it possible that those who disagreed with you were more motivated to write, than those who agreed?

Seeing the response to these postings, you were rightly admired by the vast audience you addressed. I bet that the silent majority of your enthusiastic readers far outnumber the noisy moonbats and malcontents.

Posted by: Ed Poinsett at December 22, 2004 04:17 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Steven, I wish you all the best. I can't tell you how much your writing effected me, you made me think about things in ways I had never done before. For that I thank you.

Travis

Posted by: Travis at December 22, 2004 04:17 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

I knew that your retirement had to be due to more than just a thin skin. I hate being right about that.

While you were still posting I hit USS Clueless almost daily. Your choice of subjects and your take on them was facinating nearly all of the time. I still link to your archives for cojent and exhaustive responses to the misinformed or hysterical spews from assorted lefty relatives. Your legacy lives on, so relax and enjoy yourself.

The only thing I disagreed with you about was the existence of God. God bless you anyway.

Ed

Posted by: Ed Nutter at December 22, 2004 04:27 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,
I absolutely loved your essays! I rank you with Lionel Trilling, Edmund Wilson and Samuel Johnson, for your range of knowledge coupled with your talent for eloquent expression. Don't let the pygmies get you down; you have made a significant contribution to our culture. A den Beste prize for the year's best blog essay would be wonderful.

Posted by: Stephen at December 22, 2004 04:28 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,
Thank you for sharing your brilliant essays.
My wishes are that you will find grace and peace in the future, whatever road you travel.

May you always be blessed.

Posted by: applesweet at December 22, 2004 04:32 AM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste,

Your writing was a combination of chocolate and vitamins for the mind. Both wonderfully delicious, and health creating at the same time.

And it has influenced my own writing. I have a mystery novel in production that will have a group mind in it, the blogospheric group mind. Also, as an indie (not GURPS, too bad) rpg designer, I've used your ideas on France in the 2030's as the basis for a setting, as well as other products of your very fruitful mind.

So thank you from me personally for enjoyment, learning, ideas for games, and for your service to the country.

Eric R. Ashley aka Tadeusz

Posted by: Tadeusz at December 22, 2004 04:33 AM Permalink

Comment:

I agree with everyone who has expressed their love and admiration. Wow I didnt know that about the disease thing, and that also puts it all in perspective. I know hell never come back ever, but deep down in my heart of hearts Ill always keep the link up and Ill always check it. Ill always remember and I will keep the faith. Ill also pay fifteen dollars a month. He could charge that much and Id be game for it. What an amazing writer and man.

Posted by: Zach Boman at December 22, 2004 04:49 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks and good luck

Nothing more needs to be said.

Posted by: P. Ingemi at December 22, 2004 04:55 AM Permalink

Comment:

I've learned so much from you that I couln't help being an admirer, but never so much as now.

Thank you Steven

Posted by: Renee at December 22, 2004 05:29 AM Permalink

Comment:

I'm one of the lucky ones who had an e-mail or post turn into a minor DenBeste column. I still remember the the... well, RUSH is the best word for it... I got when I saw the topic of the night was him answering my question. I sent him a thank you that night, and a few other times as well, and was always amazed when I got a reply.

No pity, except for us readers. Simply put,

Thank You.

Posted by: Wonderduck at December 22, 2004 05:55 AM Permalink

Comment:

I'm one of those who never wrote. Read every single post since approx 2001
thanks for everything...

Posted by: RG at December 22, 2004 06:04 AM Permalink

Comment:

Damn, I wrote to you once thanking you and commenting on an article. You were kind enough to reply, but I didn not want to waste your time with e-mail that was not of some substantive nature and so did not follow up. I regret that now.

Thank you for all of your writing and I wish you well with the amine site

Posted by: Y.H.N. at December 22, 2004 06:10 AM Permalink

Comment:

I came over here from lgf, wondering if you were the person my sons had been talking about. Now I'm anxious to read what you've written. I have a small mailing list and very much in line with what you've written, the readers don't get back to me very often. It's very discouraging being treated like a free newspaper. Maybe sharing your feelings will encourage others to send an occasional note to writers they admire, telling them to carry on with their good work.

By the way my older son is very much a fan of animae. You might like to know that about a year ago at Regenstein Library on the University of Chicago campus, the award for the best student collection of books was given to an animae collector and at Powells, an academic bookstore near U of C, they had a display of animae books for sale.

Posted by: Zuukie at December 22, 2004 06:41 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven-
It looks like this is the place to thank you for all you've done.

You always got me thinking, imagining new scenarios, waking me up. You had me hoping and aiming for the best, both in my writing and my daily life.
I have profound gratitude for having found and read your work while you were still writing.

Thank you. And Merry Christmas, wherever you are.

Posted by: urthshu at December 22, 2004 07:06 AM Permalink

Comment:

Ah, man...I'm so sorry to hear that. (that's not pity...just real regret)

Now I'm really pissed at the ankle biters that wasted your time.

Take care of yourself and "enjoy every sandwich".

Posted by: Mumblix Grumph at December 22, 2004 07:17 AM Permalink

Comment:

thanks steve, i learned a lot from your thoughtful essays

still the best stuff in the blogsphere

you should have a life time achievement award for blogging.

good luck

Posted by: iceman at December 22, 2004 07:20 AM Permalink

Comment:

On several occasions I emailed a comment or a thought inspired by his column to Steve, and I was very pleased when he responded. My messages and his responses were short, understandably so considering the volume of his email and the size of his audience. I didn't want to impose upon his time more than a minimal amount.

I never "carped", but I also didn't take the time to thank him. Somehow it would have seemed a bit presumptuous. After all, Steve surely knew the value of his writings, and my approval or disapproval could hardly matter that much.

Still, I can understand that even for a writer of Steve's great insight there might be a difference between how he viewed his own writings, and how he perceived that his readership viewed his writings. And if his lengthy essays were to be more than just masturbation, he would hope that they were having the intended impact on his readers. The constant carping of a relatively small number of critics could easily take its toll, especially when there was no good way to guage the views of the "silent majority".

So for what it's worth, I think Steve's blog did far more than merely please the overwhelming majority of his readers, as many other commenters have made clear. Steven Den Beste significantly affected human history. His essays had great impact during a crucial period, when the War On Terror and the striving for freedom hung in the balance. I can't measure Steve's impact directly, I can only make an inductive judgement. And I firmly believe that the ideas he articulated made their way, directly and indirectly, to countless other influential individuals.

If our lives and liberties and civilization are ultimately preserved, some important portion of credit will be due to Steven Den Beste. And for that, more than anything else, he has my deep gratitude and thanks.

Posted by: Daniel Wiener at December 22, 2004 07:28 AM Permalink

Comment:

I got into reading blogs because of a link in the Stardock monthly email letter; a link to USS Clueless. From there, I got to Instapundit, and from there, the rest of the blogosphere. Now I have my own blog (on joeuser, of course). But I can still remember finding USS Clueless in the summer of 2002, and spending many hours discovering this "new" (to me, anyway) medium. And reading through SDB's essay. He brought an engineer's analysis to politics, and helped me to hone my own thoughts. I had some small discussions with him, and I still treasure the link I got from him to one of my early blog entries.

www.denbeste.nu was for the time it was active the first link of the day, and the last.

I will admit to dropping in on the old place every so often (and I'm glad that I did, when I was able to download the complete archives), even after the updates stopped.

And finally - I work for a CDMA carrier now in tehc support, and I think I learned more about CDMA from SDB than from the company training

Posted by: Ian Argent at December 22, 2004 07:47 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you for your contribution.

Your essays always encouraged thinking that was deeper and fuller than is typical on the web. I think that may be the reason you had so many responses.

Good writing gets people to nod in agreement. Excellent writing rouses the imagination and critical thinking.

Besides depth, you also developed falsifiable ideas. The bane of our age is writing that cannot rise to the level of being right or wrong. Instead it numbs our brains as just another point of view. Please consider the number of people who told you you were wrong as an unwelcome compliment.

Small comfort at the time, I'm sure

Posted by: pete e at December 22, 2004 08:14 AM Permalink

Comment:

USS Clueless was the first blog I found that was so interesting that it brought me back every day. Steven Den Beste started me on my daily habit of blog reading.

Many thanks from Northern Ireland.

Posted by: Ray at December 22, 2004 08:31 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks.

Good luck.

Posted by: Jason at December 22, 2004 09:05 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Your USSClueless notes on how you felt about the mounting pressure of criticism were painful for me to read about, both as a sympathetic reaction, and as an intuition that I would most likely not have your posts to read much longer. When the inevitable finally came about, at least I was ready for it.

I told you a few times during your run how much I enjoyed your work. At the end, though, it started seeming that ANY email - positive OR negative - was doing you no good (at least as far as I could discern from how you wrote about the email you did get). I was quite discouraged from even writing anything positive to you, and I'm sure many others who wanted to tell you something good got the same vibe from your posts.

Regardless, your work meant a lot to me, and I hope to have eternal recourse to it on line if you would do us that favor.

Thanks again,

Jonathan Andrew

Posted by: kobekko at December 22, 2004 09:13 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you, Steven, and all the best.

Posted by: dr.dna at December 22, 2004 10:22 AM Permalink

Comment:

Sometimes I guess there's just not enough rocks.

Here's my thank-you, too, Steven, and thanks from the whole Winds of Change.NET team. You set a standard we strive to meet every day, and a goal we try to carry on.

On which topic... I think we should take up a collection and start a fund to keep USS Clueless online somewhere in perpetuity. It's way too valuable to lose.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at December 22, 2004 10:56 AM Permalink

Comment:

The gift of going long is still a very rare thing in writing. But to go long and deep on short notice is irreplaceable.

Which we all should remember when we are about to pen something snarky or, more postitively, when we read something important.

Thanks Steve.

Posted by: Jay Currie at December 22, 2004 11:22 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

There is a old, but true, saying " Joke 'em if they can't take a F**k". You should'nt of focused on negative reactions, people love to mutter and whine more than give complements, that's human nature. Why are there so few people considered saints? Simply becasue very few people actually feel insipred to good works for no material or immediate rewards. If that were not the case, we would be living in heaven upon earth, would we not?

Your writing was exemplarary and wonderfully well constructed. You were, in my opinion, the preimer blogger and a essayist of the Swfitonian school of pampleteers, and I regret deeply your decision not to continue writing. Yet, if you physically cannot, that is understandable.

I sincerely wish you all the best, and shall keep you in my prayers. Godspeed.

Swiftsure

Posted by: Swiftsure at December 22, 2004 11:43 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thanks

Posted by: William at December 22, 2004 12:10 PM Permalink

Comment:

Your blog went to the 'spere's top ten in record time. It got hundreds of thousands of hits, your posts were linked as soon as they appeared and influenced countless other blogs. That stuff didn't happent because people thought you were wrong or an idiot.

It sucks that you mostly heard from naysayers and pedants, but thanks anyway for your amazing blog and I hope you get a ton of satisfaction from your current project.

Posted by: Amos at December 22, 2004 12:30 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,
Thank you for every word you've ever written. I was grateful for the essays and even the personal replies before, but I'm doubly so now I have some idea of what it was costing you.

Good luck and good spirits with your health.

Posted by: Craig Mc at December 22, 2004 12:59 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks for your service to our country in this time of war. Your writing has inspired many and has encouraged me on ways to teach my soon-to-be-born son. Your writing will continue to be used and referenced. I found your writing from Bill Whittle after you had retired and treasure it. I now read from the archives daily and forward them to others to help explain much better than I am able. There are many like me who have read, yet never emailed or commented on ANY site, that appreciate your logic, history, and thoughtful analysis, integrated into your essays. Thank you and may you find peace in all your endeavors.

Posted by: Mark LeBel at December 22, 2004 02:41 PM Permalink

Comment:

I miss you SDB

Posted by: JOe at December 22, 2004 03:04 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,
I am also one of those who sent you a "thank you" note after you announced that you were no longer posting for USS Clueless. I will also admit to being one of those who continually stops by the site EVERY DAY just to see if you've changed your mind! :) I now understand more about why that won't be happening. I understand that you don't want pity or platitudes, but if you read this far down the list you'll have to put up with my gushing. I was introduced to blogdom by a friend of mine about two years ago. The link he sent me was to your site. I visited a few times, then added you to my favorites and started showing up every day, sometimes several times a day. You did more than just entertain me-you made me think. I didn't always agree with your points, but never disagreed with the way you made them, and you always made me go out and research. I hated that! I haven't had to research since college! But you really struck a cord with me. Since then I've introduced several other friends to bloging, using you as a jumping-off point. I'm even toying with the idea of blogging myself-if I ever get the intestinal fortitude that I would need to have. :) Please just allow me to once again say "thank you!" for all you have done.

Ben Davis

Posted by: BenD at December 22, 2004 03:17 PM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste, I'm paraphrasing but you truly went higher, farther and faster than any other. Good luck, God bless and Thanks.

Posted by: w at December 22, 2004 03:36 PM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste,

My first contact with the Blogosphere was via the gentleman who named it, at the Daily Pundit. My second was via the gentleman who compelled me, in so many ways, to return to it, time and time again.

U.S.S. Clueless was - and remains - a one-stop, full-course experience. I profoundly regret never having previously communicated to you how valued I found (and still find) your writing to be. You have, indeed, become the living embodiment of your family name.

Some of the Wisdom Of Cinema (i.e., Art Validating Life):

Forrest: I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both.

Lt. Dan: That's what all these cripples down at the VA talk about: Jesus this and Jesus that. They even had a priest come and talk to me. He said God is listening and if I found Jesus, I'd get to walk beside him in the kingdom of Heaven. Did you hear what I said? WALK beside him in the kingdom of Heaven! Well kiss my crippled ass. God is listening? What a crock of shit.

-

Forrest: Mama always said, dying was a part of life.

Mama: You have to do the best with what God gave you.

-

Lt. Dan: Have you found Jesus yet, Gump?

Forrest: I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for him, sir.

-

Lt. Dan: I never thanked you for saving my life.

Thank you for your service, sir. As much as possible, be well.

Posted by: JB at December 22, 2004 03:44 PM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste,
Thank you for all your writings. I wish you the best.

Posted by: Jessica at December 22, 2004 04:41 PM Permalink

Comment:

Mr. Den Beste:

Your graciousness and writing were appreciated my many! Thank you for your writing and the hours of enjoyment you gave me. Best of all things to you.

Merry

Posted by: Merry at December 22, 2004 05:03 PM Permalink

Comment:

I would like to add my thanks as well. While I disagree with you about religion, I very much appreciated your thoughts about other issues, even if I had quibbles this or that point. I do wish the best of luck to you. And I do pray that someday there will be a cure for your affliction, and that there is some chance, however small, that it will happen during your lifetime.

Posted by: Lola at December 22, 2004 05:15 PM Permalink

Comment:

I'd just like to add my thanks as well. Your blog was one of my daily reads. I always enjoyed your writing even when I disagreed with it. Thanks so much for ahsring with us.

Posted by: Teri Pittman at December 22, 2004 06:19 PM Permalink

Comment:

Throughout a person's life, he can hope to cross paths with one, two, or three people who will have a fundamental affect on that person's ideas, thinking processes, and approach to life.

For me, Steven was one of those few. He, like I, comes from an Engineering background. His logic and reasoning is impeccable and is like a beacon of truth to me.

The last person that affected me the way that Steven did was Mr. R. Grant Smith, my 8th grade math/science teacher whose inspiration set me on my life's path and built a burning fire deep inside me for Math, Science, and logcic.

Thanks Steven, and here's hoping you find peace.

Posted by: Scaramonga at December 22, 2004 06:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

Blogs may fade away ....

But -- if they continue to bloom, some people always will remember that Steven Den Beste, by his example, helped establish the intellectual rigor and legitimacy that blogs, at their best, can attain.

Not that he's *gone* -- I think that he'll pop up from time to time to snap a towel.

Posted by: old maltese at December 22, 2004 06:46 PM Permalink

Comment:

Stephen,

Add me to the continuing list of those who read daily but never added their thanks. For me there are three types of blogs: informational, funny, and those that REALLY make you think. Your writing was such that I anticipated reading it daily, as much for the content as the challenge of understanding what I had just read and then trying to talk to other people about it. Some of the higher engineering I still don't understand (and probably never will!!!), but what I did understand helped me to greater understand myself, and how to frame my own arguements better. Thanks is the most we can offer, realizing that it will never be close to enough.

Greg J.

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2004 06:51 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Steven Den Beste. Your essays have had a greater impact than you can imagine. Take care of yourself.

Posted by: Kalle Barfot at December 22, 2004 08:05 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, you were greatly appreciated and will be greatly missed. (I like the compilation of his essays idea - some greedy capitalist publisher should follow up.)

Posted by: Jack Straw at December 22, 2004 09:46 PM Permalink

Comment:

I’m sorry to say that I was one who never wrote. I could have let him know how much he had inspired me, not that he would have said, “Here’s another guy trying to do what I do. Cool. This gives me the incentive to keep going.” But maybe it would have counteracted one or two of the ankle-biters. For what it’s worth now, I too, thank you Steven Den Beste, and wish you the best.

Posted by: Don at December 22, 2004 10:03 PM Permalink

Comment:

Hey Steve,
I wrote onece with high praise and a question/comment. I knew you were too busy to reply to all.

I also checked every day, many times for updates that would expand my mind and shed light on this dim place.

We are going to enshrine your memory, like it or not. One does not often realize how smart one is, only that others are stupid. It takes even more to stand up and say it in the face of the naysayers. You've set the standard for opinion blogs.

Please let us show our gratitude for your contributions. We need to.

Posted by: Dietrich Schuschel at December 22, 2004 11:20 PM Permalink

Comment:

I'm one of the thousands who enjoyed Steven's unique perspective, articulate exposition and practical application of uncommon knowledge. Some of the technical data was way over my head, but I usually learned something from each of Steven's carefully thought-out and well-written essays. Like most others, I didn't write to thank him because I had the impression he was already burdened by a superfluity of emails. (DWL!)I miss the pleasure of a fresh SDB analysis to chew through, and hope that he's finding other outlets in which to channel his creative gifts. So thanks, Steven, and all the best to you. No one can take your place.

Posted by: Jon at December 22, 2004 11:43 PM Permalink

Comment:

I only wrote you a few times and I can't remember whether I was in the good percentile or not. I hope it was in the former.

I just want to state you made a big difference in my life. I was 18 in 2000 and started by voting democrat with generally liberal views save for being more hawkish. After 9/11 I started to think that I may have had a poor mindset in general but I didn't know why. In retrospect I realize I generally knew a lot less about politics and other things than I thought I did at the time. If you banned the ignorant from the vote I shouldn't have cast mine in 2000.

Other blogs helped me learn about current events and gave me insight on the news. You were by far the most influential though in giving me the wisdom and knowledge I needed to interpret it myself and understand why we needed to do certain things. To reference an old adage, other blogs gave me fish. You were the one who taught me how. Thank you so much and I truly wish the very best for you. I wouldn't be a good American without you.

-Casey Steadman

Posted by: Casey Steadman at December 23, 2004 03:05 AM Permalink

Comment:

I'll treasure my email response from Stephen...

May you explore the reaches of the space of your choice!

Posted by: Carridine at December 23, 2004 04:35 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven, you were my favorite blogger by far. I still miss you and I doubt I'll ever find another to replace you. I'll never forget you.

Posted by: Michael at December 23, 2004 06:46 AM Permalink

Comment:

Among the bloggers who inspired me to join the fray, SDB stood in the first rank. I almost always found his essays too short, and I was quite thrilled to earn a mention in one of them.

Brilliant thinking, unique insights, and impressive logic. The contribution was more than a little significant.

Thanks Stephen.

Posted by: MartiniPundit at December 23, 2004 05:35 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you, Steven Den Beste. I'm glad that I could be one of those four hundred people.

Posted by: Cecil XIX at December 23, 2004 07:18 PM Permalink

Comment:

Just damn. Mr. SDB, you shall be missed. Take care of yourself.

Posted by: Cromagnon at December 23, 2004 10:26 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven,

Thank you for your great contribution and effort.

I was one of those thousands who read you every day and treasured the stimulations of your essays. You gave me and countless others pleasure in the stimulation of logic and intellectual stimulation.

Although I usually agreed with you or followed your logic, I never really thought to thank you for your service. And I never dreamed of the level of your pain and sacrifice.

But your contribution as a true American patriot and true citizen of the world will not be forgotten by me or the dozens of people that I knew that read you as a daily ritual.

I even e-mailed you a couple of times with additional information and you responded graciously. My intent was to help you with your writing of follow-up posts and were never intended as criticism or nitpicking.

God bless you Steven, you may not know how much you made the world better for me and thousands of others. You helped me discover the world of blogs where ideas and intellect create recreation that makes me think.

You pain certainly gave me great pleasure.

Thank You,

Kosty

Posted by: Kosty at December 24, 2004 02:18 AM Permalink

Comment:

The thing of it is, Stephen NAILED his essays. He was at once prolific and succinct (think about that). He completely analyzed his subjects and never wasted a word. When he was done, there wasn't more to say.

So what was one to do -- except to occasionally quibble? But then, only to help him. Really!

Stephen wrote with the courage of and confidence in his convictions. I could never imagine he needed my encouragement. I only wish I could write like that man.

Thank you Stephen. You made this world a better place.

Posted by: Norman Rogers at December 24, 2004 03:11 AM Permalink

Comment:

Steven Den Beste says he wrote for enjoyment, but Kipling would have named him a Son of Martha:

http://www.asstr.org/~FatherIgnatius/Martha.html

Posted by: jvic at December 24, 2004 07:22 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks for a great blog.My personal favorite.

Posted by: JeffW-Htos1 at December 26, 2004 10:00 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thank you Steven for all your writing. Your fearlessness in expressing your mind with utmost clarity is unparalleled and will be missed. Thanks again.

Posted by: Satish at December 26, 2004 02:35 PM Permalink

Comment:

Living toys are something novel,
But it soon wears off somehow.
Fetch the shoebox, fetch the shovel -
Mam, we're playing funerals now.

-Philip Larkin

(Save the last Adderall for me, Steve!)

Posted by: John Sabotta at December 27, 2004 03:50 AM Permalink

Comment:

I agree with everyone here and wish there were a Steven Den Beste Fanboy Memorial Society that I could join where we would all get together and weep loudly over the cessation of his weblog.

Steven was at once verbose and laconic (THINK about that!!!!!?!?!!!?~), at once cerebral and mawkish, at once confident and emotionally crippled, at once oblong and square. More eloquent than Thomas Jefferson, more brilliant than Einstein, and more charismatic than George Lucas, Steven reminded me of the star child from either 2001 or the miniseries "V"--he seemed to be humanity's savior, and perhaps he still is.

Once, Steven wrote about a topic I had thought of mentioning to someone, and I was thrilled beyond belief. It was as if Steven was raping my mind for thoughts, which is in fact something I've often thought about happening, literally.

Seriously, he was the greatest genius of our time and I will fight anyone who says different. Do you want to fight me?

Posted by: Melvin Statler at December 27, 2004 06:33 PM Permalink

Comment:

Friend of mine clued me into SDB's posts about 2 years ago now and I've been reading ever since as much as I can. Truly sorry to see them go; they always guaranteed me a fresh angle or a more thorough understanding of something that I had (or more often hadn't) even begun to think about. Thanks for a great education from the comfort of my own home...it will be missed Steven.

Posted by: Jeff at December 30, 2004 09:35 PM Permalink

Comment:

Steven den Beste was one of the first blogs I ever read, and certainly one of the first I started reading regularly. As with many of the commenters here, I usually turned to him first, and was often disappointed not to have found something new since the last time I'd checked (which might well have been an hour previous).

Steven did us all a service, during the years USS Clueless was commissioned and flying. It has been (and will be) greatly missed.

I'm glad that I did write to Steven occasionally, and I wish I'd done so more often. As with others here, I did not want to waste his time, and so never wrote unless I had something worthwhile to say (and was able to say it constructively). It's hard to know if my e-mail had a positive impact or not... but I never made his infamous "Bozo list", so far as I know, which pleases me.

Fare thee well, Steven. As others here have pointed out, you were a true American patriot when your country needed you most... and your voice inspired legions of others to join you, in spirit and in their own voices. Had there never been a USS Clueless, many important voices of the new millenium might never have been heard, for you were their inspiration.

I can't know, but I suspect that, had there never been a USS Clueless, the Presidential election of 2004 might have gone the other way. Yes, Steven, you (and your blogchildren and grandchildren) were THAT influential.

I hope you'll take pride in that, and know that many thousands of readers miss your writing. I hope that you find other activities, as rewarding for you now as USS Clueless ever was in the past.

Best wishes, now and always,
Daniel

Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at January 3, 2005 04:03 PM Permalink

Comment:

Mr Den Beste,
Steve,

I haven't yet figured out what "degenrative disease" you have, though I've narrowed it down (olivopontocerebellar atrophy makes the list;) but that's not important. I want you to know that some recognize that you've provided a deep, profound, Clausewitzian perspective on the world's current events, and they (we) appreciate it. You introduced me to von Clausewitz, and I'm still learning. On a broader perspective, I sincerely hope you're happy with your new distraction, Chizumatic, in which I unfortunately have no interest. I truly wish you the best of luck, and if there were any way I could convince you to mine that rich vein of your former interest for a few more nuggets, I would surely do my best, but alas, I sense thankful resignation on your part that it is behind you.

Best Wishes, Sir

M. Garrett

Posted by: Michael Garrett at January 4, 2005 10:02 AM Permalink

Comment:

I didn't know we had anybody like DenBeste in the world today, I wish I had discovered him sooner, before it was too late. I've been reading several entries on various blogs and several of DenBeste's essays, and I must say that I am beginning to feel like starting a blog myself, I was amazed by his essay comparing pre World War 2 japanese culture to that of modern muslim extremists, I never really thought of it in those terms. I tried to connect modern events with the past, but I guess I lacked the mental agility, DenBeste's essay really put it into perspective for me.

Posted by: Bob M at February 11, 2005 07:02 AM Permalink

Two Tragic Things

I think the two most tragic things in this world are: One who doesn't meet his human needs because he is unaware of them, and one who rejects his fate because he doesn't value it.

By tragic I mean tragic in the classic sense: the stuff of legends, drama - the ever-present truth, to greater or lesser degree, of all of our lives. (Mere horror does not make tragedy - I know there are worse ways to suffer.) If I were to choose one thing that I most value about Judaism, it would likely be this: At least in comparison to the alternatives that I am aware of, Judaism teaches a way of life, and a paradigm of our nature, which informs us of our human needs, while doing a better job of directing us to embrace our fates.

I have spoken often on this blog of the first tragedy: of our tribal needs, of our needs for identity, meaning, connection, communication, etc. Most Americans are only vaguely aware of them, if at all, and seem to have little notion as to how to meet them. Ironically, it seems to me that the ones who suffer most from this tragedy are those apparently most capable of avoiding it: the rational, and the intellectual. In the rational category, I put a large number of highly intelligent people who, I would think, would use their prodigious reasoning abilities to analyze their needs in order to meet them. But instead, they have a strong tendency to dismiss their needs as illogical, and ignore them. In the intellectual category, I put an even larger number of highly-intelligent people who dismiss our human needs as primitive, animalistic, or wrong, and instead of leveraging them for good purpose, make every effort to deny them.

The second tragedy is one I see often, but which I, at least, have a harder time educating myself to avoid in the general sense. (I think I've done a fairly good job in my own life, thankfully.) I see it all around me: people who are cut out for one thing, but pursue another because they don't value what they were made to do. This category doesn't include people who are forced, due to economics, to pursue second, third, or fourth choices of careers - but people who ignore their most valuable assets because their society doesn't recognize them, or undervalues them, or tells them that some secondary asset is really most important. A person should do what they love. Sometimes, because of the laws of supply and demand, they can't. But when they can, and don't - that's tragic.

Comment:

"I put an even larger number of highly-intelligent people who dismiss our human needs as primitive, animalistic, or wrong, and instead of leveraging them for good purpose, make every effort to deny them."

And, I would add, intend others to deny them as well.

"... people who are cut out for one thing, but pursue another because they don't value what they were made to do."

Could you give me a concrete example? Offhand I can't think of any person in my life who fits this profile.

Posted by: Amritas at December 21, 2004 06:58 AM Permalink

Comment:

Ego sometimes prevents us from selecting roles that we are best suited for. Many want to be the hero and not the sidekick.

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2004 08:37 AM Permalink

Comment:

Amritas: Where I grew up, certain professions were highly esteemed: doctors, lawyers, professors, journalists, for example; while others were poorly esteemed: salesmen, businessmen, especially small business proprietors. I know quite a lot of people who insisted on banging their heads against the wall to do the former, when they were better cut out for the latter, and would not only be more successful, but enjoy life more.

I once had a conversation with someone in the garment manufacturing business who said that it was an easy business to make money in because smart people didn't want to do it - they'd rather work in finance.

Then there are the millions who seek life-satisfaction through their career, when what would really make them happy is a family.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 21, 2004 09:53 AM Permalink

Comment:

OK, ok, I get it, David. :)
I'm a connector but I really want to be a connectee! Like always-- *sigh*.
Beautifully reasoned, beautifully expressed.

Posted by: jinnderella at December 21, 2004 08:12 PM Permalink

Comment:

I would make a great newspaper editor, especially because Stephen Denbeste taught me the hidden details behind the War on Terror that most newspapers don't seem to know anything about. However...there are no conservative institutions set up to help guys like me get into positions of media influence in the brief time periods that we are between high-paying managerial jobs. I am between jobs now...and I tried to write to a few conservative think tanks about my situation...but they ignored my emails while great companies have now asked to interview me for management positions. Thus, the left wing losers will end up taking the low paying media jobs and assistant professorships...and continue to wreak havoc on the minds of young people and the electorate at large.

Posted by: Allen MacDonald at December 21, 2004 11:25 PM Permalink

Comment:

As an example of how the world (or at least, me) has profited by someone going into a "secondary" line of work, consider Robert Heinlein. As a graduate of th Naval Academy, he was set to pursue a career as a Naval officer. Tuberculosis forced him to find an different line of work. He ended up writing. As a result, we have "Starship Troopers" and "Stranger in a Strange Land".

The biggest problem I have with most Christian denominations is they refuse to understand the necessity of living life according to God's rules, as outlined in the Old Testament. We'd all be a lot happier if we at least gave them a try!

Posted by: Old Patriot at December 22, 2004 12:15 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks for answering my question, David.

I can think of someone who sort of fits that profile, but I just realized that more people I know suffer from yet another tragedy: not knowing what they're cut out for. They do what they do not because they or anyone else thinks it's best, but because they don't know what else to do.

Posted by: Amritas at December 22, 2004 08:34 AM Permalink

The Hyperbole of the Left

John Ray wonders why "Leftist blogs seem to have far more hits and far more commenters than conservative blogs do":

Kos, for instance, gets around 400,000 hits per day compared to Instapundit's 200,000. I think the main reason is an obvious one: Leftist beliefs need a lot more propping up than do conservative ones. A conservative finds his views -- such as the belief that you have to be careful whom you will trust -- confirmed all around him every day, whereas a Leftist finds that his views -- such as the belief that no-one (except "Rednecks") is really evil -- constantly contradicted by events. So the Leftist needs all the help he can get to generate a distorted and selective view of reality that will keep him going. So he is far more active in seeking out supportive sites than conservatives generally are. And Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore have made a bundle out of catering to that need for confirmation of Leftist beliefs too, of course. The fragility of Leftist beliefs is also attested to by how abusive they become when questioned and the Stalinist way they do their best to keep all conservative thinking out of their university enclaves. Reality has to be kept at a distance by hook or by crook.

I suspect a different explanation. The distribution of blog readership is a Power Law Distribution. The most popular blogs get a disproportionate amount of traffic, not linearly but hyperbolically. This makes intuitive sense. There are about 5 million blogs out there, according to Technorati. Let's say that the average person checks 10 blogs a day. Now let's say that he checks 2 blogs from the top 100, and 8 from the next 4,999,900. The average for the top 100 is 1/50, while the average for the rest is about 1/500,000 - meaning that the top 100 get 1,000 times the traffic as the bottom 4,999,900. This kind of relationship holds whether you take the top 10, top 100, top 1000, etc. (I suspect that my numbers underestimate the concentration at the top, in any case, they are meant only to illustrate why the Power Law Distribution makes sense. I don't know the real statistics.)

What John's statistics say to me is that the distribution of readership among leftist blogs is even more hyperbolic than among conservative blogs. This too makes intuitive sense. Leftists are more likely to follow the leader, rather than think for themselves. Conservatives are more individualistic and thus diverse in their tastes. As John says, reality is everywhere, constantly poking holes in leftist beliefs. But that doesn't mean that reality is easy to understand. One who seeks the truth will naturally range far and wide.

Trackback from Iowa Geek, Today's opinion roundup:

Today's opinion roundup

Comment:

I don't know why lefty blogs generate more comments in general (your hypothesis is as good as any) but I do think that enabling comments has a distorting effect on site traffic. If Kos gets 400,000 hits per day, is that unique visitors, or does it include commentators who check back frequently to see what responses their comments have prompted and to write their own responses? A couple thousand angry lefties determined to have the last word could drive that 400,000 hit count all by itself. On the other hand, Glenn doesn't enable comments, so his repeat traffic (how many times one reader hits his site each day) may be lower, so his stats aren't inflated as much by repeat visits.

Posted by: Tom at December 21, 2004 05:44 PM Permalink

Comment:

I agree that how the statistics are compiled reflects on their validity for comparison. Kos has repeatedly given pointers to readers on how to cheat on web surveys and the like.

Some blogs are utilized as "web portals", or jumping off points. A visit to a blog may last only a few seconds while searching through the blogroll for the real destination.

Posted by: Rene at December 21, 2004 06:33 PM Permalink

Comment:

Tom: You are right. Comparisons cannot be made between blogs with comments and blogs without.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 21, 2004 07:06 PM Permalink

Comment:

Here are a few of my random observations:

Lefty blogs outside of a handful just aren't that good. Many use poorly thought out arguments, grammar and can't stand dissenting opinion. It is my opinion that many liberals commentators who can put pen to paper [so to speak] have jobs in the news/opinion industry already. They get hired by every [yes, including Fox] news channel and newspaper in America. Why do something for free, when they already do it for a paycheck? Quick, name any news anchor or editorialist that worked for a Republican administration….

In the vein of “Leftists are more likely to follow the leader, rather than think for themselves.”, I think they go to Kos, DU, MoveOn, DeLong, Moore, etc. to see what they should be thinking today. An intellectual pacifier if you will. I’ve seen it with a couple of employees where I work. They’re intelligent about other things, but with politics, they can’t think for themselves and usually parrot one of the sites I listed above. When I know that I have to work with them, I review those sites and have my arguments ready the night before. It greatly infuriates them.

My last point in this long diatribe is that half the visitors to Kos are conservative [my estimate, no basis in fact at all]. Conservatives tend to be curious about the issues and with the dearth of conservative media outlets, we have to track things down ourselves. It’s also nice to know what the opposition is thinking and how they get to their conclusions… Sometimes they have a valid argument, but usually it just makes it easier to rebut them.

Posted by: Doug Halsted at December 21, 2004 07:29 PM Permalink

Comment:

Good point, Doug, about the high numbers of non-leftists who may cruise Kos and other lefty blogs for reasons of surveillance.

Istapundit is not really comparable in content or complexion to Kos/DU/etc. Instapundit is an information outlet geared to a broad array of tastes. Reynolds encourages readers to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Kos/DU/etc are merely circle jerks for the true believers. Pit stops to top off on hate levels.

Posted by: Rene at December 21, 2004 07:41 PM Permalink

Comment:

I think to support your assertion, you'd have to analyze the different patterns of blog use--and that's not as easily measured.

Posted by: Chap at December 21, 2004 11:48 PM Permalink

Comment:

Doug,

I think some of your comments also apply to Right blogs: e.g.,

"... outside of a handful just aren't that good. Many use poorly thought out arguments, grammar and can't stand dissenting opinion ...

"[Visitors go] to see what they should be thinking today."

"Surveillance" (as Rene paraphrased your last point) goes both ways, and often is really just looking for quotes to mock. There are, I bet, a lot of Leftists who visit LGF purely to find racist comments.

BTW, I probably am on your side. I think the best Right blogs blow away the top Left ones I've seen. But the majority of blogs, regardless of ideology or leaning (I say "leaning" because because many bloggers have no coherent ideologies), are pretty weak.

Too many blogs to me seem to be memetic transmission machines: they are efficient at spreading ideas, but it's not that interesting to see hand-me-down memes recycled for the umpteenth time.

I look for blogs with original, personal, and intellectual material (e.g., this one - where else am I going to find explanations of Judaism with the original Hebrew?) that can't be found elsewhere.

Posted by: Amritas at December 22, 2004 02:16 AM Permalink

Comment:

An added datapoint: Internet savvy conservatives tend to be older, and have responsibilities that are inherently more contrained when it comes to leisure time flexibility ...which constraint usually equates to having much less time on their hands to cruise - or revisit - blogs, let alone practice the sport of "comment riposte-ing" (pun intended ...I'm currently unemployed, so I'm not a good example). My purely anecdotal generalization is that similar Internet savvy liberals tend to be younger, with MUCH more disposable time.

Too, youth tends to be an age where peer conformity is a HIGHLY "prized" behavioural attribute (in the West, at least ...hell, it might be Darwinian, now I think on't), and if in general "youth=online-liberal" is a reasonable enough truism, then they'd tend to "flock" to "popular" sites like Kos (regardless of the quality of the writing). Like, well, lemmings.

...to paraphrase an old saw "...there's no accounting popularity" (de gustibus non est disputandum).

Posted by: brandon davis at December 22, 2004 08:29 AM Permalink

The Herd of Independent Minds

This was too good for me to pass up:

Last spring, I was surprised by a call from a reporter at the Harvard Crimson asking me to comment on my contribution to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. His inquiry was prompted by the disparity he'd discovered in donations by Harvard faculty of about $150,000 for Kerry to about $8,000 for Bush. (The figures have since changed but not the percentages.) I could have filled the whole issue of his paper with reasons for supporting Bush over Kerry, but as we both knew, the real story was the "herd of independent minds"--the image is Harold Rosenberg's--charging through the American academy.

The Federal Election Commission could not have foreseen that when it required employment information on political donations of over $200, it would expose scandalous uniformity in a university community that advertises its diversity. The Sacramento Bee reported that the University of California system gave more to the Kerry campaign than any other single employee group, and that Harvard was second, with only 15,000 employees to UC's 160,000. A blogger computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%.

Comment:

It also exposes a scandalous lack of dictionaries. Since when is the ~5% the "herd" and the ~95% not? Sounds like they should be more concerned about the "lone wolves" in the midst of their sheep...
jlb

Posted by: jlb at December 21, 2004 05:39 PM Permalink

Comment:

Just one more leak in the dam (or should we say dike?). The influence of academics in American life continues its sorry decline towards zero.

Posted by: Trip at December 21, 2004 05:55 PM Permalink

Comment:

Clearly the 95% is the herd. American academia has become a cud-chewing clump of mindless herbivores following each other toward the precipice.

A person needs to be very careful where he sends his children for education these days. The bovine academics think nothing of stepping all over independent minds.

Posted by: Conrad at December 22, 2004 10:12 PM Permalink

Instapundit Thanks Steven Den Beste

Glenn Reynolds thanks Steven Den Beste, and links to my post with the same message. The result: 13241 views of that post alone, and 82 comments in less than 3 hours. It's very moving to see how many people want to thank Steven, as I do.

UPDATE: More links from Little Green Footballs, INDC Journal, Betsy's Page, Liberalismo, The Smallest Minority. Of course, the first link was from Amritas.

Comment:

Well, he will be missed. I just hope he sees the post and that it can make up in some small way for all the times we didn't thank him when he needed it.

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby at December 22, 2004 01:55 AM Permalink

Comment:

David, i think you need to update your stats! :)

Posted by: jinnderella at December 22, 2004 03:54 AM Permalink

Comment:

Does anyone doubt that Mr. Den Beste is the Thomas Paine of our time? So many posts were a cry for the return of Common Sense. Would Paine or Swift have received this outpouring of support were they to have announced a retirement? True patriots are all too rare. Mr. Den Beste was a man for his age, appearing at exactly the right moment and retiring at the top. Would that more Americans would use their brains to rationally arrive at their viewpoints as he did. At the least he set an example.

Has anyone emailed him with the links to Rishon Rishon, Europundits (many more comments since SDB first posted), LGF, Prof. Reynolds pages to direct his attention to all the good vibes and love his readers are showing him?

(posted here because the intent of the comment was to remark on the show of support for him)

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 22, 2004 04:52 PM Permalink

Comment:

Paul: Steven has linked to both Europundits and my post from his main page.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 22, 2004 05:23 PM Permalink

Comment:

I hope then that he can get a glimmer of the impact he has had on us, his faithful readers. I fuly expect that when my daughters' history books 15-20 years hence talk about the Bush Revolution in American Politics that SDB's name and essays and the congruent rise of the essay blogger will be as prominently featured as Thomas Paine, Common Sense and the rise of the pamphleteer were featured in my American History books (they do still talk about him, I hope).

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 22, 2004 06:20 PM Permalink

Evolution and the Contagion of Reason

It is often said that the ancient Greeks were the first Europeans. Indeed, their culture feels remarkably modern. Usually this is put down to the Greek spirit of inquiry, its dedication to reason, or perhaps cosmopolitanism. But there is another characteristic of ancient Greece which unites it with the present, and distinguishes it from the past. It is a characteristic that is almost universally overlooked, despite its importance, because its presence is so much a part of contemporary consciousness that its nature is exceedingly hard to convey: ancient Greece, like modern times, was a non-traditional culture.

Though I, myself, am often haphazard in my use of the word 'traditional' (for example, I often use the terms: 'traditional values' or 'traditional religion'), at least for the purpose of this post I will endeavor to use the word more precisely: A traditional culture is one that has explicit cultural institutions for transmitting tradition. The emphasis is on the word explicit - clearly, people in all cultures learn from their elders, and thus tend to propagate traditions. But in tribal cultures there is strong, if not universal, tendency to maintain cultural institutions whose purpose is to preserve and transmit the wisdom of the tribe. In other words: maintaining tradition is an explicit value - not just as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. The identity of the tribe is symbiotically bound to its memetic wisdom, and each strives to preserve the other.

Traditional culture is often thought of as a kind of super-stodginess: elders frowning and saying, "this is the way it's always been done". However, I have found (and I don't know how generally applicable this is) that in a certain way quite the opposite occurs. The maintenance of explicit institutions for transmitting tradition provides a forum, and a language, for examining it. We see it operate in the one area of life that, at least in Anglo-Saxon countries, still operates on traditional principles: Law. The legal profession, in common-law countries, maintains institutions for transmitting not just the law itself, but also how the law is understood. And when the law is applied, it is necessary to consider not just the law itself, but the whole weight of legal tradition - this tradition being considered, in fact, inseparable from it.

It is perhaps inevitable that tribal cultures would tend to be traditional. Clearly, those tribes which best succeed in transmitting their accumulated wisdom to the next generation are most likely to succeed, so maintaining explicit institutions for this purpose would tend to further this goal. But there is a better reason: traditional cultures create the infrastructure for memetic evolution.

Many systems, not just genetic systems, are evolutionary. To be evolutionary, a system need only:

1. Consist of units which propagate traits over time

2. Propagate units with advantageous traits better than units with disadvantageous traits

3. Have some kind of mechanism for mutation of traits

Thus, many systems, for example economic systems, can be thought of as evolutionary. But notice that (1) and (3) are contradictory: it is essential that the tendency to mutate be extremely low in comparison to the tendency to conserve and propagate traits. If the mutation rate is too high, it will overwhelm the ability to propagate advantageous traits, and the system will be defined not by evolution, but by the quirks of the mutation mechanism.

The ancient Greeks, in adopting reason as the standard for judging truth, implicitly rejected tradition. It is this, to my mind, that is most responsible for the modern feel of Greek culture. But in doing so, they rejected an evolutionary system in favor of a viral one. Reason is a mechanism for the rapid mutation of memes: Come up with a good reason, and you will change your mind, and others'. The fitness of a meme is determined not so much by the constraints of the environment, as by its attractiveness to the fallible mind.

Clearly, reason has brought us far. But with populations on the precipice of decline in every modern society, it might be relevant to ask: Will it win out in the end? Perhaps tradition will make a comeback? Or perhaps there is some synthesis of reason and tradition that is better than either of the two?

(Cross-posted at Gene Expression)

PS: I think this whole issue should be thought of as meta-memetic evolution: Memes which determine the evolutionary environment of memes. It is parallel to genes which determine the mechanism of reproduction.

Comment:

I think we should apply reason in deciding which of our institutions are most in need of criticism. Reform ought to proceed cautiously, only as fast as our understanding grows.

Conservatives are rather like those enzymes in the cell nucleus that repair DNA. They are absolutely essential: too fast a rate of mutation will destroy the lineage.

Liberals are the free radicals, copying errors and errant photons. They also are essential: too slow a rate of mutation and a species will be displaced by competitors.

So the lesson is, one must be both a conservative and a liberal.

Reason can help us to decide which traditions to cling on to less firmly.

(I guess in the past traditions evolved more by adapting or dying in face of crises.)

Posted by: Tom at December 23, 2004 11:09 AM Permalink

Comment:

Bureaucracy carries within it seeds of tradition. Changing a bureaucracy using reason is often impossible. The recent changes in US government bureaucracy came about because of violent trauma to the system, multiple deaths, large scale security concerns, and a $1 trillion hit to the economy in a single day. And who can guarantee that the changes will do any good?

Tradition also exists in parallel to government and the law, in the form of religion and other organizations of civil society. Ethnic and cultural traditions likewise serve as brakes on proposed legal changes.

"Conservative" traditions stretch back thousands of years. "Leftist" traditions are younger and may take a while to become as firmly established. Leftist reasoning is still associated with revolutionary thinking, which leaves it at a disadvantage when people feel in need of traditional reassurance.

Posted by: Marvin at December 24, 2004 12:56 AM Permalink

Living Life

Jinnderella links to my Maladapted post. Among other things, she says:

My friends that are observant Jews seem very happy, and have an exceptionally high "goodness coefficient".

My very unscientific observation agrees with Jinnderella's first, that observant Jews tend to be happier than average. I'm not so sure about the "goodness coefficient" though. It seems to me that there are a lot of good people out there, I have seldom met someone whom I consider "not good". In fact, I agree with something a secular Jew once told me, he said: "I don't think we should need God to be good." At the time I answered: "Judaism is not just about being good, it's about how to live life."

I once overheard a conversation between an observant Jew (OJ) and a non-observant Jew (NJ) that went like this:

NJ: Do you think that you are better than me because you are observant?

OJ: No, but I think I am better than I would be if I weren't.

I think everyone should feel this way about where they're at. If they don't, they should do something about it.

On further thought, though, it occurs to me that it's much easier to be good, when you're also happy.

Comment:

My very unscientific observation agrees with Jinnderella's first, that observant Jews tend to be happier than average.

I know that you prefaced this by saying that it is unscientific, but I cannot help but wonder how we can really measure happiness in a way that allows us to gauge one person's happiness versus another.

Some people require books to be happy, others jewelry. Assuming that you have an unlimited supply of either how would you measure their happiness.

And it raises the question of values, but that is a different discussion altogether.

Posted by: Jack at December 24, 2004 08:26 AM Permalink

Comment:

The happiness/satisfaction also comes from the knowledge that by living according to halacha, instead of against it, there's less to feel guilty about. There's a peace, personal peace.

Posted by: muse at December 24, 2004 11:20 AM Permalink

Comment:

That only works for people who believe in it.

Posted by: Jack at December 25, 2004 08:29 AM Permalink

Comment:

I meet a lot of bad people in the world. Like Gene Berman and emo-fans.

Posted by: jinnderella at December 28, 2004 06:50 PM Permalink

Comment:

What are emo-fans?

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 28, 2004 07:05 PM Permalink

Comment:

People that like that whiny "Oh-my-grrlfriend-dumped-me-and-now-i-want-to-diiiiiieeeeeee" music. Bands like Modest Mouse and Dashboard Confessional. Guys that wear too tight t-shirts and backwards billed caps, and emote all the time. Ugh! ;)

Posted by: jinnderella at December 28, 2004 07:09 PM Permalink

Merry Christmas

When I lived in the US I never much liked the Christmas season - not because I had any objection to Christians celebrating Christmas, on the contrary! It just seemed like everyone was going to a party except me, and I felt left out. The fact that I didn't want to go was beside the point.

Now that I live in Israel, the day can pass without it ever occurring to me that it's Christmas. There are no signs anywhere to remind me, and nobody around me who celebrates it. In fact, if I hadn't surfed the web today, I would have forgotten.

On the other hand, I now have no qualms of wishing, to whom it may concern: Merry Christmas!

Christmas in Hebrew is: Hag hamolad (חג המולד) - Holiday of the birth.

Comment:

A question for you from an atheistic former Christian with Jew-curious tendencies: Is the date given a name in Judaism as an artifact of Jews outside of Israel living amongst so many Christians that a word was necessary or because the birth of Jesus of Nazareth has any particular significance to Jews (i.e. is he considered a high prophet as a descendant of David or a rabbi)?

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 24, 2004 08:06 PM Permalink

Comment:

Meery Yuletide to you to. Long live the days of misrule. Health to the Abbot of Unreason.

Posted by: ExpatEgghead at December 24, 2004 09:12 PM Permalink

Comment:

Paul: Neither the day, nor the person, have any significance within Judaism. The day has a name only because Hebrew speakers must refer to it somehow, given that it is celebrated by a couple of billion people.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 25, 2004 04:45 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks David! I suspected that to be the case, but I wasn't sure. Those crazy Muslims call him a high prophet, so I wasn't sure if the first Abrahamic leg or the trifecta cared about him at all.

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 27, 2004 04:35 PM Permalink

Comment:

David,

Just chiming in to say Merry Christmas!

Just kidding. Actually, I want to mention that there's a Jewish-Isreali Blog Awards thingy going on that JenLars has linked to.

I first went over to nominate Rachel Ann of Willow Tree for best personal blog, but saw that she was already nominated (first nominee, in fact).

Then I decided to come re-check you out because I remembered that I liked reading your blog back when you first became a Munuvian.

I've been reading every post from today backward and just gotta say that I have no idea why I stopped stopping by. Your posts are fascinating to me, an "atheistic former Christian with Jew-curious tendencies" (as Paul put it).

Now I just gotta go back and figure out which categor(ies)y to nominate you in...

Posted by: Tuning Spork at January 3, 2005 12:37 AM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks, Spork.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at January 3, 2005 08:28 AM Permalink

Comment:

Hello! I found your blog via the JIB awards at Isreallycool, and am enjoying reading some back entries.

Thanks for teaching me the Hebrew name for Christmas. Somebody asked me once, and I didn't know; my best guess was "yom huledet shel yeshua." *g*

Posted by: Rachel at January 4, 2005 11:41 PM Permalink

Christmas where it happened

The Jerusalem Post has a nice feature which describes Christmas in Israel:

This is also the only country in the western world that is absolutely devoid of crass Christmas commercialism, notes Rev. Heldt, and as a result "you are brought back to the reality of what Christmas is all about. That's why I love being here for Christmas. It is so simple, and so beautiful."

It's a little bit odd to hear Israel being described as being "in the western world". After all, we are in the Middle East...

How many of you knew that there are four Christmases in Israel? From the International Christian Embassy (dated last January):

Israel's Christian community, albeit a diminutive 3 percent of the population, is a microcosm of the world's gentile religions, displaying an array of festivals and holidays celebrated in a compact country. Christmas is one major – and slightly confusing – example.

While the majority of the western world celebrated Christmas on December 25, and then Orthodox religions celebrated on January 7, one Christmas has yet to be observed: the Armenian Christmas.

Now, lest we think we have a handle on the situation, let's add some confusion to the mix: It is only the 2,500 Armenians in Israel who use an old calendar and celebrate Christmas almost a month later than the majority of the world - on January 19. Armenians in Armenia use the new calendar and celebrate on January 7.

But even within Israel's Armenian community, not all consider the same day the main celebration. Armenian Catholics observe December 25; others, who hail from an Orthodox background or are not 100 percent Armenian observe January 7; and traditionalists observe January 19, perhaps the most popular day for the majority of Armenians.

This page explains:

There are actually only 2 dates for the observance of Jesus' birth and not 4. They are December 25th and January 6th. The confusion of the other 2 dates, January 7th and 18th are due to the use of 2 calendars, the Gregorian and the Julian. While most of the known world, such as Canada, is on the Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory of Rome), some Orthodox Christians maintain their liturgical calendars according to the ancient Julian calendar. Thus, the January 7th date actually corresponds with December 25th on the "old" Julian Calendar while January 19th corresponds to January 6th on the Gregorian calendar. Those who observe January 7th which is actually December 25th on the Julian calendar are referred to as "old calendarists." Despite the calendar usage, all these churches observe the Epiphany or the Baptism of Jesus 12 days following the Nativity.

Comment:

A long time ago (in a different lifetime, it sometimes seems to me), I was a military policeman in the IDF. (I doubt any readers here would remember me, but I was called Shechori then.) As an MP -- or mem-tzadi as we were called -- I found myself on duty in Bethlehem on Christmas eve, as part of a peace-keeping force, to ensure that Christmas mass (and other celebrations) went smoothly.

Every year, we heard lectures on the three Christmases -- the December 25th one (which we called "the Catholic Christmas"), the January 7th (which we called "the Orthodox Christmas"), and the January 19th (which we called "the Armenian Christmas").

As a result, I can truthfully say that I spent Christmas eve in Bethlehem... nine times in three years. I'm also in a position to know about the weather in Bethlehem on Christmas eve, because it rained, continuously, all nine times.

Thanks for bringing back some memories, David!

kol tuv,
Daniel in Brookline

Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at January 3, 2005 04:12 PM Permalink

Bilingual Blog

Alisa in Wonderland is going bilingual! I say qadima (קדימה) - go for it (literally: forward)!

Comment:

Hey, it's not as if it has not been done before; but thanks for the link:-)

Posted by: Alisa at December 26, 2004 10:22 PM Permalink

60 Links to Post

According to NZ Bear's Ecosystem, there are currently 60 links to this post. See them in the extended entry.

Continue reading "60 Links to Post"

 

Comment:

I'm not in NZ Bear's ecosystem (still too new and small), but I linked to that post as well.

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 28, 2004 03:22 PM Permalink

Comment:

Paul: You're never too new or too small. Join here.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 28, 2004 03:39 PM Permalink

Comment:

Thanks! Now I'm an insignificant Microbe!! :)

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 29, 2004 09:26 PM Permalink

Comment:

Paul: No doubt you will evolve and grow!

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 30, 2004 10:52 AM Permalink

Security Well

It comes as a surprise to many people, but Israel is a pretty safe place to live. It certainly compares favorably to any city in the US, though oddly, to an American, Israeli cities aren't more dangerous than small towns. Unlike the US, danger doesn't come in the form of crime, but in the form of terror. In many ways this makes it easier to deal with. Security can be effective, because we know what needs to be secured: places were large numbers of people congregate.

A few months ago we were walking though a park with some friends from overseas, when one of them suddenly exclaimed, "What's that!" I turned around, an saw that he was pointing to this sign. The sign says: bor bitahon (בור ביטחון) - security well. To be more precise, 'bor' can mean well, hole, pit, and bitahon is from the root b-t-h along with words such as: batah - trust in, betah - sure. When talking about wells, a bor is the kind of well where you walk down to the water, in contrast to a b'er, which is a well where you draw up the water.

Anyway, a bor bitahon is a specially constructed hole, that's designed to direct the force of an explosion straight up. Back in the days before suicide bombers, it was relatively common for our enemies to try to plant bombs in public areas. A bor bitahon is where you put one of these bombs, if you find it in time.

Comment:

I didn't know that, it was very interesting.

Posted by: Jack at December 29, 2004 07:54 AM Permalink

Comment:

It's also where you might find any bags etc. that you are stupid enough to forget in a public place.

Posted by: ilana at December 29, 2004 04:28 PM Permalink

Girl of Your Dreams?

A while back, Dan Dare brought an amazing video to my attention, and asked what it shows. This was my response:

It shows,

1. A picture's worth 1,000 words.

2. It was not about beauty (as was said in the video), it was the same girl in each picture!!! It was about what she communicated through body language, clothes, etc.

3. What it is telling us is that guys want to go out with the "girl next door" (at least when she's beautiful), i.e. they like family values! (I do too.)

4. Alternatively, it shows marginal rather than absolute demand, i.e. that sexpots are common, and family-oriented women are not. I don't think this is true, but it could reflect men's perception of the truth.

Comment:

My son (aged 28) says that the reason the sexpot didn't get many responses is that a lot of men think they have no chance with her, or even don't believe the picture is genuine (i.e. if she's so gorgeous, why does she need to use Internet dating).

Posted by: ilana at December 30, 2004 11:40 AM Permalink

Comment:

I think that the sexpot photo just wasn't as attractive as the other photo. You'd need quite a few different women to control for variation in photo quality.

Posted by: gc at December 31, 2004 10:50 AM Permalink

Comment:

GC: Nice to have you come and visit!

Ilana and GC: I don't know. I don't think either explains the HUGE preference we see.

But of course, this isn't a scientific study.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 31, 2004 11:58 AM Permalink

Happy New Year

This morning I took the bigger kids (ages 4 and almost 3) to school. Then I put the baby in her stroller and walked over to the makolet (מכולת) - general store, to buy bread and wine. It was a beautiful day, warm and sunny, temperatures in the high 70s, I would say, atypical, though not particularly unusual for this time of year. People were going about their business.

After a while I remembered that it's New Year's Eve. New Year's, like Christmas, passes unremarked in Israel. A lot of people who aren't surprised that this is true of Christmas are surprised that it is of New Year's - usually considered a thoroughly secular holiday in the US. In Israel, however, it is not the case. Israelis call it Sylvester (New Year having been taken by Rosh Hashana), which I think is its name in Eastern Europe or Russia. (I don't have time today to research it on the Internet.) Though the calendar which begins January 1st is usually euphemistically referred to as haluah ha'ezrahi (הלוח האזרחי) - the civil calendar, it is well known that its origin is Christian, having been established by the Pope for the celebration of Christian holidays. (Yes, I know, it's based on the Julian calendar, which goes back to pre-Christian times.) This general feeling has not been diminished by the adoption of New Year's as a siba l'm'siba (סיבה למסיבה) - a reason for a party, among certain sectors of the population.

The first New Year's I spent in Israel (January 1st, 1985), I made a point of staying up till midnight to listen to the news. In those days, the government had a monopoly on all broadcast media, and all radio stations carried Qol Yisra'el (קול ישראל) - the Voice of Israel, every hour on the hour, for about 5 minutes of news. The newsreader gave the usual summary of the news that was going on at the time. Finally, at the end of the broadcast, he said: "Hayom Rosh Hashana shel hanosrim" (היום ראש השנה של הנוצרים) - "Today is the New Year of the Christians". And that was it.

Happy New Year!

UPDATE: For more on Sylvester, see here and here.

UPDATE: For another perspective, see here.

Trackback from Willow Tree, Oh and By the Way:

David of Rishon Rishon has something to say about what I completely forgot. I didn't realize the day had passed till I looked at my calendar on the computer. I'm pretty happy about not realizing it; I guess that makes...

Comment:

Well, since for you today is just Friday, while I celebrate a New Year for me, I will wish Shabbat Shalom for you.

Posted by: Paul R. Bixby, Jr. at December 31, 2004 05:14 PM Permalink

Comment:

The name "Sylvester" is not used in Russia. And a belated Happy New Year to you:-)

Posted by: Alisa at January 1, 2005 09:39 PM Permalink

Comment:

Alisa: I thought so when I could find links about it in Germany and Poland but not Russia. Thanks for the confirmation. And a Happy New Year to you too.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at January 1, 2005 10:02 PM Permalink

Comment:

We haven't done any of the American customs since making aliya in 1970, not even Thanksgiving. Our kids were also raised with their Hebrew birthdays.

Posted by: muse at January 2, 2005 10:38 AM Permalink