The Know It All--Redux

One of my avid readers--okay, "avid" is a little strong; it's my niece, who's recovering from surgery and doesn't have anything better to do--wrote that she's amazed they had computers when I was young. Well, check this out: "Calculating Machine" (the cross reference from "Computer") -- "a device which solves problems in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division."  Note the picture. It's not much more than an abacus!


P.S., in the entry, which should be that. ;-)

The Know It All

When I heard about this book, I just had to own it. I mean, really, people have been accusing me of being a "know-it-all" for decades--more than five decades, actually--and here's somebody who's stolen my thunder. He's read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica from A to Zed (33,000 pages and 44 million words) and then written a bestseller about the experience. I hate him, the show off!

I never dreamed up A.J. Jacobs's gimmick, darn it, but I came close. You see, when I was ten my parents bought my younger brother and me a set of The World Book Encyclopedia (10,518 pages and around 10 million words by my rough calculation). I'm not sure Paul used it much, but I was immediately enthralled. I kept it in my room. As a budding know-it-all, each night I would grab a volume at random from the shelf and read it in bed until I fell asleep. I even autographed the inside cover of each of the 19 volumes. I still sign my books, but not with the paraph I used then. (A paraph is the decorative flourish accompanying a signature; it was once a popular technique to deter forgery. Think of John Hancock's signature, for example.) 

I still have those World Books. The graphics are simple--quaint, one might say--and of course the information is outdated (for example, the entry for "computer" says: See Calculating Machine), but they are still fun to leaf through. And Jacob's book, modestly subtitled "One man's humble quest to become the smartest person in the world," is a hoot! It's part memoir, part education, and all fun. He writes with wit and charm, and he shares with the reader his journey of discovery from a-ak to zywiec and everything in between. I learned, for example, the following tidbits with which I can now astound my friends:

• besides being a writer, among other things Goethe was a lawyer, painter, theater manager, statesman, soldier, alchemist, astrologer, songwriter, philosopher, botanist, biologist, issuer of military uniforms, and mine inspector
• in some languages there is a cousin to the prefix and the suffix; it's called an "infix," and there's only one in English; it's not polite, but Red Sox fans use it as Bucky Dent's middle name
• Alaska is both the western-most and eastern-most U.S. state (check it out on a globe)
• a "square root" is so called because the Pythagoreans would make a square of, say, 16 pebbles with four equal rows; thus the bottom row--the root of that square--was four

I also learned about the Ebbinghaus curve (a.k.a. the "forgetting curve"). I'd tell you more, but I don't remember how it works.

One thing I didn't learn was why Britannica's last entry isn't zyzzyva, any of various tropical American weevils, often destructive to plants. I've always thought that would be a great Scrabble word, but there aren't enough Z-tiles to pull it off.

The Election is Over -- Hooray!

Now that the election is over (thank goodness!), let’s hope that the people we sent to Washington and the state capitals will settle down and get something done rather than spending their time slinging more loose rhetoric. 

     It’s about that loose rhetoric that I write today. It’s easy enough to brand someone with inflammatory language—“liberal elitist,” “socialist,” “reactionary,” etc.—but seldom do I hear people define those kinds of terms; and seldom is there any purpose other than to put down the opposition.

     An interesting little 10-question exercise (dubbed the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz”) will help you define yourself on the political spectrum. Think of political philosophies not as points on straight line but as positions on a baseball diamond. Everyone is somewhere on the diamond, somewhere near one of these positions:

Third base: Left (Liberal)

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Second base: Libertarian

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Pitcher’s mound: Centrist

Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

First base: Right (Conservative)

Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

Home plate: Statists (Big Government)

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties. [I don't hear a lot of people claiming to be "statists" today.]

     Take the quiz at: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz It’s easy and it’s fun. And it will instantly place you somewhere on the political spectrum, as shown in this hypothetical result: 

Then ask your friends to take the little quiz too and see where they land. It’s kind of a Myers-Briggs test for politics, and it should provide some insight into one’s “political personality.”

     If each of us were more conscious of the belief system that underlies our own viewpoints, and if we were able to recognize the belief systems through which others view the issues, maybe we could stop throwing around undefined terms and start actually to define what the problems are. For example, we could ask each other, in a calm and non-threatening way, substantive questions like these:

     “What does it really mean to say so-and-so is a [insert pejorative here]?”

     “I sense that you’re coming from a libertarian viewpoint; do you think we should help homeless people, and if so how?”

     “When you say you want to ‘take our country back,’ can you be more specific about the problems you want to fix and how you want to fix them?”

     “As a liberal, do you agree that there’s a crisis looming in Social Security and Medicare? If so, how are we going to pay for that safety net as the baby boom generation reaches retirement age?”

     Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” He also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” This election cycle may have proven him right on both counts once again.

     Unless we all shelve the angry rhetoric and name-calling, recognize the basic beliefs each of us is “coming from,” and actually start to identify and solve problems, it’s not likely to get any better for 2012.