Braindrops

Just hearing the name "Lipa Schmelzer" makes me giggle.

There's an old paradox that discusses what happens when an irresistable force runs into an immovable object. The resolution comes from the recognition that in a universe that contains an irresistable force, there by definition cannot be immovable objects.

I've found this tool to be particularly helpful when looking at other apparent paradoxes, such as those found in Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein's defense of the Lipa Schmelzer ban. (For purposes of full disclosure, I have never been to a Lipa Schmelzer concert, and as far as I know, I have never even heard a recording of his music.) He is attempting to square the problem of shameful behavior on the part of respectable people, even though both can't be true at the same time.

I should begin by noting that Rabbi Adlerstein is absolutely one of the good guys. But he is, presumably unwittingly, doing enormous damage to the causes that he clearly holds dear.

First of all, his derisive references to people troubled by the ban ("It is not as satisfying to many people, and lacks the cathartic release of a good zinger in the blogosphere", "(W)hat he did makes ironic sense to people who can bottle up their rage for a while", "Perhaps he actually meant what everyone is frothing at the mouth about:") are, I imagine, a reflection of his own discomfort in defending the indefensible. One need not be an inveterate "gedolim-basher" to question or oppose the banning process; Rabbi Adlerstein makes frequent reference to his own concerns, and it is unfair and unkind to ascribe inappropriate motivations to other with similar questions.

Let's get to the meat of things, then. The following quotes from Rabbi Adlerstein's essay struck me as being the most troublesome.

He has to discharge this both on a personal level, and to prevent anything that he does to be seen as slighting their honor – even if he disagrees.

Since when has respectful disagreement constituted a slight of honor? As far as I can tell, this baseless equation is merely an example of the growing myth of da'as torah, with its ubiquitous insincere denials of imputed infallibility. In the real, infinitely argued world of Torah, there is absolutely no equivalence between Rabbi Kaminetsky's refusal to sign a ban and signalling disrespect for leading rabbis.

This does not mean hypocrisy, but articulating in a manner that will send different messages simultaneously to different people.

I don't quite know where to begin with statement. Rabbi Adlerstein may not be advocating hypocrisy, but he is certainly calling for something far short of honesty. This cavalier dismissal of forthrightness is particularly jarring when one considers the compounded convolutions necessary to depict Lipa Schmelzer's performances as halachically inappropriate; there may be religious mandates proscribing public concerts or mandating respect for rabbis, but they pale in comparison to the Biblical obligation to stay far away from falsehood.

In all other decisions, were Rav Shmuel to do what so many of our commenters – published and unpublished – want him to do, which is courageously stand up and speak the truth, he would be set upon by legions of detractors as parting company with the gedolim of Eretz Yisrael. Please remember that there have been lots of people campaigning for literally decades to reject all the Kamenetskys, largely for being too liberal.

I simply cannot fathom the assumption that the "gedolim of Eretz Yisrael" are incapable of standing up on Rabbi Kaminetsky's behalf would he were to commit the unforgivable sin of speaking the truth. In fact, if, as Rabbi Adlerstein asserts, "the problem with gatekeepers with their own agenda is hundreds of years old," then there is really no excuse for the gedolim not being aware of, and responding to this problem. And herein lies the crux of problem - one cannot at the same time revere the gedolim and hold them other than responsible for proclamations issued in their names, especially if they have longstanding familiarity with the traditional zealotry of their gatekeepers. Rabbi Adlerstein's attempt to bifurcate the two is noble, but ineffective.

I should conclude by noting that I'm not personally theologically troubled by these developments. Good and great people make mistakes, and I feel no compulsion to pretend otherwise. I do, however, think that a society that is unwilling to respectfully protest bad examples of leadership will experience more such examples, and I think that unfortunate.

And, to conclude with a point I have often made, it is inconsistent to simultaneously revere the Torah and be so very willing to massage and manipulate it for the purposes of defending things that are so obviously wrong.

- Moishe Potemkin

Here's a Thought

Somewhere in the vaporous mists of my mind, I have an essay about how Bush's endless enthusiasm for his mess of an amnesty bill confirms Norman Podhoretz's theory that some time before the third week in January 2009, we'll drop something nice and juicy on our friends straddling Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrating as it does his comprehensive disregard for considering, in the bowels of Christ, that he might be mistaken.

That essay will have to wait. Instead, I would like to propose a name for the sensation that we the Chosen have upon encountering another member of the Chosen, akin to "Gaydar," through which Friends of Dorothy apparently recognize furtive Idahoan senators without speaking a word (widening a stance?). Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...

Oy veydar.

Use it well.

- Moishe Potemkin

Sloppy Jerks

For the past few weeks, I've had this idea of chopping a couple of onions, mincing a garlic clove, browning 'em up in some olive oil, browning (CJ prefers the more chromatically accurate term "whitening") a couple of pounds of ground turkey, stirring in a couple of cans of cranberry sauce (another ingredient in the Ortho-pantheon of non-food foods, alongside non-dairy creamer, onion soup mix, and hot dogs), percolating the glop for about half an hour to squeeze the salmonella out of it, and serving it on a crusty roll. (Okay, Seven schmile schmarket Italian bread, which, as Madame Potemkin pointed out, is, amazingly enough, less pricey than the prepackaged mass-marketed perfectly square pillow-filler located opposite the meat counter, despite having a passable crust and enough dough conditioner to coiff a horse.)

Sort of a Sloppy Joe, with turkey. Thus, the Sloppy Jerk was born. Or whelped. And it was far better than it looked. 'A course, sewage probably tastes better than this stuff looked. But it passed the "make it again on purpose" test, in a way that the cranberry meringue pie of years past did not.

(Disclaimer: The comment above should in no way be seen as suggesting blogging with any frequency whatsoever. The children remain safe.)

As you were.

- Moishe Potemkin

Whoever Disqualifies...

In this morning's Baltimore Sun, Norman Solomon argues in defense of the Mearsheimer/Walt paper. As you will recall (if one obsesses over these things, as I do), Mearsheimer and Walt present a fairly one-sided perspective of the current conflict, in which Israel is always to blame. If this inaccuracy were correct, their conclusion (namely, that America's positions vis-a-vis Israel are unfair and unwise) might make more sense. It isn't, so it doesn't, but such is the nature of academia.

Since they were published, though, a host of folks have presented the facts ignored by Mearsheimer and Walt, including the manifold sins of the current and past Palestinian leadership. Interestingly, despite their call for debate, Mersheimer and Walt have yet to defend their position. This, though, is not my point.

The accusation behind which they're hiding is that any criticism of Israel is greeted as Anti-Semitic by the all-powerful Israel Lobby (note the upper case). In fact, these folks are describing any dispassionate response to their imbalanced work as an accusation of Anti-Semitism, freeing them from the onerous burden of having to respond. It's not accurate - Dershowitz in particular has never been a blind defendor of Israeli policies - but it's ironic, nonetheless.

- Moishe Potemkin

Let Freedom Reign! Or Ring! Or Whatever!

A few weeks ago, DovBear, noted blogger, and prime example of a well-meaning but under-educated left-winger asked me to explain how free markets benefit the poorest amongst us. The following is a brief response, but I will do my best to respond to comments or criticisms arise.

Exhibit A, as always, is the land of liberte, equalite, and fraternite, as well as increasingly frequent car burnings and riots. Currently, the government is attempting to make it easier to fire young folks, in the counter-intuitive but ultimately realizable belief that employers will be more willing to hire people if they can discard those that prove to be unproductive.

Anyhow, the first argument I would make is the 23% unemployment rate among young people in France (I think the definition is under 30, but cannot swear to that). That is, I think, a sign that employers are hesitant to engage people when the costs of disengagement are too high.

The second argument is the rioting itself. France has tried - in all sincerity, I'm sure - to create a socialist model such that one's welfare is reasonable even in the absence of employment. However, human nature is what it is, and while more people will opt for idleness when its costs are reduced, it's just not good for them - as a group, there tends to be this sort of devolution toward destructive nonsense.

So, yes, we all whine about our jobs, and I'd rather not have to spend the balance of today cutting and pasting and all that. But net net, the surfeit of regulations and impediments to the free market in France are, I think, a good example of how good intentions do not translate into good policy. For society as a whole (which includes the shopowners with newly smashed windows, as well as the smashers), as well as the individuals themselves.

And yes, there are cultural clashes in France that we don't have yet here in the U.S. I see that as more of an effect than a cause of a stagnant economy impaired by over-regulation.

- Moishe Potemkin

Taking Sides

This link takes you to Tim Blair's reproduction of the cartoons that have so many Muslims' turbans in a wad. I'd reprint them myself, but I don't know how.

I have no idea as to whether the free world wins or loses this particular battle of wills. I certainly hope we win. My point is only to utilize the mechanism of democracy, in demonstrating to my own elected officials that I will not support any kowtowing to fear. Yes, some innocenct people will eventually get hurt when some uncivilised followers of the prophet exuberantly give in to their basest violent impulses. It's worth remebering that the alternative is not no violence; it's the current bastardized version of sharia where violence is doled out fairly regularly, with synagogues and churches (and, I imagine, gay bars and Planned Parenthood centres) being burned in addition to embassies. We'll still have inciteful cartoons, they'll just be about Jews and ultimately Christians. (These subtle distinctions that we make between Jews and Christians are all so much blah blah blah to the Islamists.)

So, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Michael Steele, Ben Cardin, Doug Duncan, (holding nose) Martin O'Malley, and Robert Ehrlich, if you want my vote for your next campaign, you will need to take a stand for freedom of speech, and defend my right to say odious things. Or you can unsuccessfully hide your fear behind a pretense of "respect" that is neither warranted nor honest.

We can deal with the societal niceties of not being rude once the ground rules for civilised behaviour have been agreed upon. But the message being sent by the lunatics who are burning down embassies left and right is not that Mohammed's image is sacred, it's that there is a subset of Muslims that like nothing more than having an excuse to run around and scream and play offended. And that mindset does not deserve to be catered to, or respected. It needs to be squashed.

- Moishe Potemkin

Man's Humanity to Man

So all of the usual suspects are in tizzies (that pluralises poorly) about Paradise Now, because it humanises suicide bombers. (On a somewhat related note, the Rabbi recommended that I not see The Passion of the Christ because it would create an inappropriate empathy for the fellow whose followers ultimately branded my grandparents a while back, just outside of Oswiecem.)

I kind of think that humanising suicide bombers is important, though. This is not the standard exonerating pablum about how desperate their lives must be, which is mostly warmed-over Jew-hatred, as best I can tell. But it should not be overlooked that this is human behaviour, and for folks hoping to understand what it means to be human, this is a part of it.

I'm not sure what to do with that point, exactly. Perhaps the flip-side is that if modern science has made any progress in understanding humanity (insert maudlin reference to infinite complexity, blah blah blah), then one could devise an effective response. I know we can track bin Laden's cell phone - but do we know enough about societies to guide them? Or do we just wait and hope the Muslim baby bubble explodes before we do?

Also, do we know what the heck happened to Barry Miller? There's one cardinal rule for movie-watching in the Potemkin household, namely, that one should only watch movies with ugly people in them, because those folks must actually know how to act. (The penumbra to that is, of course, to avoid Julia Roberts films. She's nowhere near as charismatic as she thinks she is, but she's somehow fooled enough people to not have to rely on her talent.)

Senor Rodriquez from Boogie Nights might be the requisite exception, but Steve Buscemi's actually really good, so he's in. Frances McDormand; always, always, always Stockard Channing; Jack Klugman; John Turturro (we're heavy on Coen, apparently). One gets the drift. (Or else, one watches Brad Pitt movies, which are punishment enough.)

Anyhow, Barry Miller was (is, I think, at least he should be, according to the actuaries), a goofy-looking fellow who could pass for Jewish (duh), Puerto Rican, or Italian, brilliant or hopeless, and he seems to have completely disappeared, once ties went narrow in the early '80s. Seems a shame.

- Moishe Potemkin

In Which Moishe Endears Himself to the Entire Blogosphere

1) To Greg: The reason there were few comments on your initial post on Rambam is because the discussion devolves depressingly quickly into over-confident assertions along the lines of "There is no possible healthy interaction between boys and girls. Period." or similar tripe in which the commentor confuses his confidence in dopey ideas promulgated by 20th century North American chasidim and hastily adopted by religiously insecure Litvacks with there being some sort of factual merit to the argument. Yeesh. Do you really want to encourage that sort of nonsense?

2) To DovBear: Dude, the fundamental principle of all economic theory is that people, as a group, buy less of any given good when this good is more expensive. That rule has been observed over and over again; is true for doughnuts, hand grenades, and employees; is beyond question by both serious and un-serious economists, and represents the fundamental reason why unemployment rises when the minimum wage is raised. You can call that selfishness if you want, but it represents an indisputable segment of human nature, and pretending that it can be legislated away is likely to be as successful as outlawing cancer, or decreeing that fried chicken not make people fat. Id est, not very.

The above was not the original intent of this post. I had wanted to note that on the way to the salt mines this morning, the radio featured two consecutive remakes of songs that weren't terribly memorable in their original form ("Killing Me Softly," and some other mindless dirge, the chorus to which runs something like "So We'll Never Survive, Unless We Go a Little Crazy"). Taken together, they made me wonder just how culturally exhausted we are, that we have nothing at all new to say any more.

Much like this post, regrettably.

Yeeshily,

- Moishe Potemkin

Snivelling Spinelessness

Here's an interesting post by the incredibly prolific (I don't know if that's just another word for unemployed, or if he's got some sort of programming job that also involves no adult supervision) DovBear, in which he decries the War on Christmas, courtesy of, and I quote, "a man named Rosenberg". (I was a bit surprised, bexcause I actually know a man named Rosenberg, but it wasn't him. I guess it's a more common name than I had supposed.)

Let me begin with a pathetic political disclaimer: I am a pro-legal-abortion, radically-feminist death-penalty-opponent (with an obvious predilection for hyphens), and I gave up reading the nefarious Cross-Currents (nope, no link) blog lo these many moons ago, because I found its scribes' views to be rather dishonestly inconsistent, depending upon whether they were published as letters to the editor in Commentary (expansive and tolerant), or in the privacy of unzere velt (spite-filled and provincial). So my defense of one of their arguments should not be read as a defense of their general outlook or, even worse, tone.

And, to get to the matter at hand, I have no pronounced preference for any form of December-time greeting, although I still have nightmares of the time my former company's CEO ran through the cubicle maze in a Santa Suit wishing his paeons a hearty "Merry Christmas," which turned into a "Merry Holiday" (No, really. What a yutz that guy was.) when he belatedly espied my yarmahopper.

In defense of the Merry Christmas Yidden, though, I think that what appears to be nothing more than a sycophantic defense of a creed with which we ostensibly disagree even more than the much-maligned Reform movement (link to your own C-C post here too - most likely, one selected at random will do), actually has two reasonable defenses.

First, and I say this as a paraphrase in the name of a well-known and widely respected rabbi - there are two billion of them, and 14 million of us, calling into some question the sagacity of ticking them off more than necessary. (Yes, yes, of course, I'm a spineless ghetto Jew and all, but at the same time, if your insistence on Jewish pride threatens my kids, fairly or otherwise, I may still choose to err on the side of prudence. For much the same reason, I don't take Shabbos evening strolls in Harlem in my satin frock and furry hat. It may well be my right to do so, but fat lot of good that will do me in the moment.)

Second - I tend to agree with the good Dr. Huntington's diagnosis of the current global fooferaw as an honest-to-goodness clash between civilizations. Again, considering the limited number of civilizational canaries (id est Juden, or Jooden if you're Dutch) out there, perhaps there is something to be said for the utilitarian benefits of supporting and strengthening the cultural forces that represent the primary identity of, if not our friends, at least the enemies of our enemies. Otherwise, it's a bit of a battle between something - malignant, oppressive, and destructive, but something - and a benign, tolerant, and broad-minded nothing. Ideologically, of course, I tend to agree with the nothings, but I do doubt the potency of this philosophy, particularly up against the Islamist mob clamoring to kill the Jews and rape their cattle.

This is not to downplay the risks inherent in this strategy - we are, at best, a tiny rudder on a massive ship with a history of surging out of control and pogroming its rudders - but, like the Choose Your Own Ending books used to say, you've got to make it through the semi-finals to get to the World Series.

- Moishe Potemkin

The Blissfullness of Ignorance

So the entire world is abuzz over the president's spying revelations, and my very best left-wing friend was on me like white on rice (Do I have that phrased correctly? It does not flow trippingly off the tongue. Or keyboard.), asking whether I thought that governmental eavesdropping was a good thing. (He's been somewhat more tactful than his wife, who, upon discovering that I think the war is a good idea, demanded to know why I wasn't off there fighting. I note that she herself is opposed to rape, and despite this deeply-felt conviction, has yet to actually join the police force and assume the dangers inherent in that role. We're all full of poo, to some extent. Still, nice people.)

So, no, no, I don't. I think the government does a whole bunch of things it shouldn't do, which range from the benignly irritiating (Is it really the government's role to tax me into appropriate behavior by restricting certain parking spaces for the handicapped? The fact that something is nice doesn't imply that government, with its bluntest of cudgels and its infinite self-interest, need be involved in its perpetuation.) to the repressingly stupid (Steel tariffs? The war on drugs? Social freaking Security? The Defense of Marriage Act? Yeesh.). And initial custodial sincerity tends to transform itself, Animal Farm-like, into the preservation of power for its own sake. Even amongst those who speak English, amazingly enough.

Besides, my neighbors talk to their family in Iran all the time, and they would probably prefer to keep the eavesdropping limited to the Iranians censors - and perhaps they'd dispense with them, too, if the situation were to present itself. (Was there actually an attack on Ahmadinejad? Can we have another? Can I ever keep a train of thought for longer than a paragraph? Only The Shadow knows.)

But, I do take some comfort in the knowledge that there are things going on of which I, and the general public, are unaware. People tend to evaluate the merits and effectiveness of the war based upon the very limited pieces of information that surface at Fox or the Grey Lady, and I have long suspected ( Wooo-ooo, aren't yooooou smart?) that, as is appropriate, there's a whole pile of stuff going on that we civvies know nothing about.

Krauthammer's recent apocalyptic concerns may well be valid, and it's entirely possible that threats known and unknown may vastly outnumber our defenses. But it's a tad reassuring to know that our responses aren't as limited as they might appear.

- Moishe Potemkin

An Army of Sharons

I'm the last person in the world to issue political prognostications, but since everyone else already has, I suppose it's my turn, so here goes:

1. Sharon wins the upcoming Israeli election; and

2. A new American political party (call it the Giuliani party) emerges over the next several years, and quickly becomes a major political force.

Essentially, its the same driver in both cases. With the magic of the internet becoming less and less of a big deal, the ability to circumvent the Establishment becomes easier and easier.

In Israel, most people want to pursue peace as though there is terror, and to fight terror as though there could be peace. This is, of course, the polar opposite of Rabin's strategy, and the only option likely to work over time. Since both major parties are over-represented by their extremes, it just takes too much work to get anything done through them. Once they can be side-stepped, though, real live stuff can actually be accomplished.

My sense in the U.S. is that most people want a vigorous fight against terror, but tend not to get too worked up if a couple of guys want to get married. The Deanians are driving the Democrats toward appeasement, and the Republicans are proving to be less than capable at hasbara, which really matters now. John Kerry, bless his heart, seems to be acting in total bad faith when he kinda-sorta challenges whatever the Bush administration says. Aside from the impracticality of it all - outside of D.C. and Berkeley, folks aren't solely defined as Democrats or Republicans, which means that when the President is bashed and bashed and bashed, one effect is to weaken the presidency itself, not just its current holder.

Anyhoo, if I can reclaim my thread of logic, some of the criticisms are illegitimate, but that in now way implies that any subsequent ramifications can be ignored. This poor performance, more than any other, is the administration's most significant failure. (Also, they are wa-a-a-y too fixated on other people's alleged morality, which is a huge pain in the butt, and not just for the types that get off on that sort of thing.)

So right now, the regnant partisanship is actually keeping things from getting done. Sooner or later (My call is 2010, or mid-way through Hillary's first term), I think the 60% of the American public that finds itself within one standard deviation of the center just throws in the towel, and whoop, there it is.

(This may, incidentally, bypass my own ineligiblity for the Presidency, depending on how well Schwarzenegger regains his mojo. I'll keep you all posted.)

- Moishe Potemkin

Because the Children are the Future

Truth is, I’m a bit hesitant to write this post, because for those who disagree with me, I’ll end up sounding like those dingbats that advocate genocide as the only solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Then again, of the twelve people that read this blog, only about three know who I am, and their minds are, I’m sure, beyond changing. Certainly, my initial dreams of attaining David Broder-like status (as a bloodless political savant) have yet to come true. I haven’t even been invited to comment on Montel, for crying out loud.

Getting back to the original point, it seems as though France’s suburbs (populated by, apparently, no particular ethnic or religious groups worth noting, although the generic appellation of “North African” suggests that they’re probably Liberians, “North” being a relative term, and all.) remain out of control, despite the good M. Chirac’s stated commitment to view all such rioting as a self-justifying expression of the prejudices and frustrations borne by the inhabitants of these neighborhoods, whose lack of any apparent identifiable ethnicity fails to shelter them from the evil prejudices of the French.

Anyhow, here’s my suggestion: take away their children. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the genetic code of the average suicidal Islamist. So if we were to take their kids away and bring them up as normal human beings (see the Druze, if one is committed to bring them up Muslim). First of all, they grow up human, and second, this, I think would be a deterrent in the way that appeasement never is.

Let’s overlook how ridiculous this sounds, and observe that we do, in fact, send in the Social Services folks when a child’s environment falls below some level of acceptability. It is not a stretch to opine that when kids are encouraged (specifically, or as some general ideal) to actively hurt those whose religious contentions differ from their own, we're at that point.

‘A course, if someone’s got a better idea, I’m happy to hear it.

- Moishe Potemkin

License to Hate

My landsfrau Miriam and the quadriparous Orthomom have lately been railing about a tendency amongst certain elements of the Ultra-Orthodox set to exclude the children of the newly religious from their schools. Apparently the potential contamination that might be transferred by these children (who presumably have some contact with their heinously irreligious family members) outweighs the biblical imperative of education.

It's easy to snidely dismiss this as wrong-headed, and I'm regrettably not above doing so here. By way of analogy, imagine someone who is extremely scrupulous in the rules of kashrut. So scrupulous, in fact, that he refuses to rely upon the neighborhood rabbinate and its potential for error or leniency, and instead, he kills pigs in his backyard with a hatchet, and eats them.

Snidenss number two emerges in the form of the hope that these folks consistently excise all Talmudic quotations of Rabbi Akiva, whose own existence was adulterated by a non-observant upbringing.

Okay, having gotten that bitterness out of my system, let me more dispassionately observe that aside from the evil inherent in this attitude, it's also dopey. (Perhaps someday I'll craft a post on the evilness of dopiness. They're viewed as distinct, but I see it as a false distinction.) While there are probably people that turn to observance out of weakness, there are also sincere people that can see the beauty of a system that they have adopted consciously. Excluding such people creates an insular environment in which that element is sadly absent. Besides, even the Satmar lulav incorporates chozrei bitshuvah.

Yeesh.

- Moishe Potemkin

Waiting for God - oy

Clearly, it's the wrong time of the lunar year to raise questions of potential heresy, but during the recent two-day toot-fest, I found myself wondering why the world has made so little religious progress over the past (select your own imponderably long epoch here). I can email myself over my telephone, and apparently we also have the technology that enables the beste mentschen to camera-video government witnesses right in the courtroom, to facilitate their decapitation whenever convenient.

And yet, for some reason, people still suck. I don't mean just our Mohammedan cousins that have somehow confused mental PMS with the divine will of Al-Lah. I mean, well, me. When I was a mere tad (lisp fully intact, scalp fully visible), there was a kindly old fellow named Mr. Klein at the neighborhood house of worship. Mr. Klein had, at some earlier point in time, suffered a stroke, leaving his gait and speech significantly impaired. I have few memories of the man, but what stands out is the fact that as a matter of course, my friends and I took to mocking him.

This isn't a diatribe against how cruel children can be - I have a chubby nine-year-old, and I'm reminded of this all too often. It's not a screed against any particular branch of what we lovingly call the frumme velt - we happened to be fairly right-wing, but I don't see its unique elements as contributing to our obtuseness. (Well, this example of obtuseness, anyhoo.)

Kellner makes a good case for progress, and by golly, we know much more about how the world works than ever before. We prob'ly learn more about stuff (including people) than earlier generations picked up in a generation.

And yet, when it comes to actually making people better (or is that better people? Or is better people too reminiscent of eugenics?), we got nothing. What the hey?

- Moishe Potemkin, in an insufferably maudlin mood

A Joy of Telecommuting

GlennRenn has a lengthy sausage on how employers are utilizing telecommucting capabilities to allow workers to stay employed in the U.S., essentially by having them retain big-city salaries while living in the Podunks and Peorias.

I think he's right in seeing this as a win-win from an economic standpoint, although it would be nice to see Bangalore, too.

A point not made, since it's not yet realistic, is that this sort of geographic diversification is also a helpful defense against some terror threats. Currently, something like nineteen gazillion folks jam themselves into Stuyvesantville every day, because that's where the action is. If by virtue of virtuality, this action becomes steadily less concentrated in one small island, then even if the evildoers get ahold of a dirty bomb, the potential negative impact on the economy is minimized.

Not a pleasant thought, but there, on the periphery regardless. Have a lovely day.

- Moishe Potemkin