Mathematics After The Fall

I updated the software for this site, Wordpress, from version 2.2.2 to 2.6 tonight. Yes, I missed a couple versions. I also changed the look, to Blue Mist. Though I still don’t have a Candyland-like white background, the black background seemed a little dark nowadays.

One problem with this conversion is that I lost all the listed categories. I’m restarting new categories, and eventually I’ll fix that. On the good side, now there’s a convenient search bar in the upper right corner. So, if you want to find out how many posts contain the word “tears”, you may do so. It’s nine as of now, by the way.

Enjoy.

I was visiting my parents in Pennsylvania, and I returned to an interesting request. A reporter from the New York Times had found the abstract of my talk on the age of homeless in America. The New York Coalition for the Homeless had received donated time for television advertisements. You can view the modified ads from this page.

Why do I call them modified ads? Well, they used to be different. The 90 second ad and the Facts ad used to include less quotes in the middle, and a different ending. It used to conclude “and by the way, the average age of a homeless person is nine.” As of early July, the original ad still appears on Youtube. I had heard this statement earlier, during the December 2007 Commencement at Bellarmine.

The article appears online at the Times’ City Room blog. Thus, I helped cause a change in the ads.

The full implications of this work startled me. There’s the boost to my professional career. Bellarmine also gets a mention in a big publication, helping the school. Of course, this means I now need to know a lot about the situation. This was originally just a teaching example, but now it’s not. Fortunately, I managed to find an assistant for the research; she and I will have something ready by Mathfest at the end of this month.

There’s a moral issue, as well. The Coalition was hurt by the negative exposure. That’s not a good thing, as homelessness is a large problem. Many people without permanent shelter are children, thousands in New York alone. Even if not half, they could use support. Weakening the groups that provide and advocate for support does not help. On the other hand, I have an academic responsibility to accurate statistics, as much as we can. An average age of 9 does not appear correct. In Catholic thought, even for the right ends, wrong means are inappropriate and sinful. This is a right end. Using a misleading (at best) figure is an inappropriate, potentially sinful way to do that. I should help. But it hurts a little. It’s funny how seemingly simple things, like 15 minute talks, can become moral dilemmas. I wish I had an answer here, or even better words to describe my feelings. Maybe later, I will.

Because I sometimes get questions about old posts, until I manage to put this in the header or something, please remember that things published on this blog and website are accurate as of the time of publication. My beliefs, or the situation, may have changed since then.

Thankfully, the three best dancers made the final this season. As I did once before, I’ve decided to Tivo-blog the end of the show. One thing I should note is that I prefer ballroom to Latin. Latin styles tend to involve quick leg and hip action. Fairly tall people, like me at 6 foot 1, have trouble physically keeping the beat. It’s not coincidental that the better Latin dancers are shorter. On the other hand, the long flowing lines of ballroom are easier with height and stature. Plus, the ballroom dances have more elegance.

In the group cha-cha, each couple plays to their strengths. Christian and Cheryl stay mostly open, focusing on hips and slides. According to my estimate, they’re hand-in-hand facing each other for only about 20 seconds of their minute. For comparison, Jason and Edyta work in typical ballroom positions, hand-to-hand facing, for over 40 seconds. Instead of hip sway, they dance with a back sway and Jason’s athleticism. Kristi and Mark focus on Kristi, who is at least as athletic as Cheryl and Edyta; they’re hand-in-hand facing for about 30 seconds. Their show moves are spins, because an ice skater can spin like crazy.

After the individual minutes, the couples dance as a group. Jason misses a step, which Bruno catches, and he makes a little cringing smile. Christian has better musicality than Jason. Then again, even with two arms, Christian couldn’t make the final lift seem so simple. The word “Wow” came out of my mouth. Sure, you have two world-class athletes involved, but that doesn’t make it less gorgeous. At the end, they celebrate as a group. That’s one of the great things about this show. Because the judges serve as the foils, and because the contestants understand the purpose of competition, they are often happy for each other.

What is that purpose? Competition and athletics drive us to be better people. We learn strategy, discipline, practice, and teamwork. After the training, however, too many people think of winning as the goal, and self-improvement as the side effect. This is wrong. When playing card games, I used to say that my goal was to play a flawless game, and winning would be a side effect. Card games have random chance. Against someone of equal talent and preparation, my play can guarantee I don’t lose the game, but it will never guarantee victory. Sometimes good players lose. That’s not the point. It’s about what I can control. That difference, playing for effort and not result, made me a better player. And I did pretty well. Similarly, if I were dancing against Kristi, I would lose. She’s got more skill and experience. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try, or gain a great deal from the experience. Besides bringing partner dancing back, for which I am highly grateful, DwtS also puts competition in the proper context. No wonder I like it so much.

Anyway, it’s time for judge commentary. Len mentions Christian’s hips and Jason’s elegance (and agrees with me that he’s better in ballroom dances like the foxtrot), but calls Kristi the total package. Carrie Ann declares Kristi as the winner, hands down. I agree. She is both an athlete and an entertainer, while the two gentlemen are one but not the other. The judges give Christian 8, 9, and 9, for 26; Jason 8, 8, and 8, for 24; and Kristi 10, 10, and 10, for 30. That’s about right.The second half of the show is time for freestyle. Kristi and Mark do a highly technical motown dance, mambo and hip-hop. To give you some idea of the difficulty, Mark does an assisted backflip as the third or fourth toughest trick. There were a few minor timing errors; I noticed two on Kristi’s part. The judges award 10, 10, and 10, for another 30. I’m a little surprised; I thought Len would score a 9, because of the minor awkward moments.

Jason and Edyta dance to Will Smith’s Miami, which is a mistake. It’s a hip-hop song, not a ballroom number. Jason is a ballroom dancer. He can’t win with this, because Kristi is much better in open position dancing. A cabaret number would have been a better choice. They still could have the lifts, full overhead spinning lifts which were at least as good as Kristi and Mark’s. They still could have removed some clothes; as Bruno mentioned, it is like watching centerfolds. Overall, 9, 9, 9 is about right here. It wasn’t as good as the first pair on the ground.

Christian and Cheryl are the last pair; they choose meringue. Here, Christian’s arm injury is a severe disadvantage, because they’re limited to one handed lifts and moves. It’s not that their aerial action isn’t good; it is, but the other two couple are well, well ahead. A bigger problem is that they can’t perform any two-handed dance moves, which means that they’re limited in their turns and even their dancing positions. It’s a very good dance, and Cheryl choreographed it well. That said, in terms of dancing talent and aerial talent, Christian is nowhere near Kristi. He’s not even Jason, even though his scores of 9, 8, and 9 give him a total of 26 for this dance and 52 for the evening.

Going into the final, Kristi has 60, well ahead of the other two stars. She’s been the best and should win. Overall, Jason’s been better than Christian, particularly in the ballroom dances, so I think he should finish second. We shall see.

I fast-forward through the recap, so I started watching with Usher’s Love in This Club. Usher doesn’t get partner dance. His “partner” does the splits, and promenades around. They do a couple turns, but then he just watches. It’s almost predatory. She jumps into his arms. Later, the dancers do a side-by-side choreographed routine, without touching. Parts easily could have been hand-in-hand.

The third place couple is … Christian and Cheryl. As it should be. They receive a group hug and standing ovation. In what sport do semifinal losers get that kind of respect? Why don’t they? On Sunday, Pittsburgh defeated Philadelphia to advance to hockey’s Stanley Cup finals. Say after the handshake, the Philadelphia Flyers received applause from the crowd before the presentation of the conference trophy. It would be the talk of the nation. I’ve seen this happen at a Super 14 rugby final in the Southern Hemisphere. It was so classy. I wish Americans did that. Back on the show, the couple still gets to do their favorite dance, a paso doble to awesome paso music I want.

The recaps begin, with previously eliminated contestants. American Idol is on during the first hour, so there’s much filler here. As Adam Corolla states, this is why the Terrorists hate us. In the juniors, the best couple wins, the 13-and-unders. The boy Brandon gets his wish, as three Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders present the small mirror ball. After all the losers dance, Usher comes out for another group dance number. I like this one better, because he his song “Yeah” and made it a blues club number. He wears a classic white suit, and a couple dancers have fedoras. It’s appropriate for this show.

Finally, in the last half hour, the competition restarts. Kristi and Mark picked their jive. The jive bounces and spins, making it a smart choice. To no one’s surprise, it’s excellent. Kristi even recovers from getting her shoe caught in her pouffy skirt. They receive a deserved 10, 10, 10. Jason and Edyta chose the quickstep, a ballroom dance. Closed position and long leg movements are Jason’s strength. He’s also got good facial expressions here. It is their best dance of the season, in my opinion better than Kristi and Mark’s tonight. Anything less than their first 10, 10, 10 would be morally wrong. Fortunately, the show’s got a good heart. Jason is outwardly happy.

Overall, Kristi and Mark have been the best couple. They are the highest scoring team ever, and should win. After some more plugs, and another commercial break, it’s time for the mirror ball. The new champions are Kristi and Mark! Fireworks explode. Jason and Edyta are appropriately gracious. Confetti rains down. The champions are hoisted into the air. Now, if I could just get the hosts to end the show with “Keep On Dancing”… .

Many Americans have this idea about exceptionalism. America doesn’t have the problems that other places do. We read about Zimbabwe and Darfur and Pakistan, and we often say that those things couldn’t happen here. America’s too good for places where government, the community and state, doesn’t work. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Some of those failings are behind the scenes, like how young women turn to violent, brutal, vicious monologues that barely support them, because nothing else is available. (See the last entry.) Many of the others, the lost communities, are generally in places most Americans never see. That’s why we are amazed by descriptions like those in Sudhir Venkatesh’s Gang Leader for a Day. Over Spring Break, I picked this book up, having heard about it on NPR. I finished it in a day and a half. It’s the first book in the Musings to get the highest rating, 5 out of 5. If you are mature, and at all interested in communities (and I think you should be), this is a vital book. You should read it. I will warn you that the language that Dr. Venkatesh uses is quite brutal. It’s appropriate, because the life is brutal. The book is not for the squeamish. Then again, this blog has never been for the squeamish, either.

I thought for a while before awarding a 5, because that level of importance needs to be rare. It’s like giving A grades; if they’re common they lose value. For a while, I thought I was being generous because I had knowledge of the topology. When I arrived in Chicago in August 2000, some of the Lake Park infrastructure was still visible. When the 47th street entrance to Lake Shore Drive was under construction, I sometimes drove up to 39th street, passing the project on the right. I’ve seen the Robert Taylor Homes, the setting for most of the book, and driven through from time to time. I’ve personally seen the brutalist architecture of large, raw concrete buildings. I’ve seen the unprotected motel-style outside corridors that are completely inappropriate for windy, cold Chicago. I’ve seen mostly boarded up buildings. By 2000, many of the 28 original high-rises had been knocked down, leaving strangely open blocks of territory on State Street. These homes were several blocks from the subway, blocked on the west by the expressway. As even the CHA now states, “By containing a large low-income population on an isolated site, the Robert Taylor Homes property became a national symbol for the errant philosophy of post-war public housing.” They were miserable to view. It’s not hard, retrospectively, to see the problem. Take large numbers of relatively poor people. Choose sites far away from services and public transportation, because those are naturally undervalued. (As has been admitted, the projects didn’t even have the standard Chicago rectangular street grid, to further the isolation. Stack them in ugly buildings - the name brutalist actually comes from the french word for concrete, not how the buildings looked, but it works completely. Fail to maintain the buildings. Remove services and support, like police, banks, and medical services. Watch civil society disappear, and alternative forms of government develop. This means Gangs. After a few years, you get what’s described in this manuscript.

Dr. Venkatesh did the sort of naive idiotic dangerous thing graduate students are warned about. He went to the Lake Park homes to conduct a multiple choice survey. He should have been robbed, beaten, or killed. It happens every so often, even in the better neighborhood of Hyde Park. Instead, the leader J. T. adopts him, for reasons never fully explained. The author gains access, and over time, trust. He documents the world of the failed state, both in academic papers and the book. He worries about ethics and getting too close, even as that closeness furthers his career. (Navel-gazing I’ve never enjoyed reading, and that tradition continues here; these parts can easily be skipped.) In the end, the author gets the top-tier academic job, at Columbia; he has a happy ending. J. T. does pretty well; he gets to retire to the suburbs. The community, on the other hand, gets destroyed, razed with the buildings. The Robert Taylor Homes are like Ben Tre; “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

This might be right; given the errors made in location, construction, and support, I don’t know if the community could ever have survived. It’s an utter embarrassment. You should read about it. As I did, I often cringed. I was also often amazed by J. T.’s skills. He is the best businessman I have ever seen, including the billionaires. With his skills, if he had my childhood, let alone the privilege one of many of my undergraduate compatriots, he would likely have two homes in the Hamptons. Instead, he’s got a stable middle-class life. If I were a business leader, I would read this book then try to hire J. T. After all, you can steal a lot more with a briefcase than a gun, right? If I were anyone else, even with the small flaws I have mentioned, I would read this book. It’s not happy, but it is revealing.

Back in February, I received a personal invitation to view the rehearsal of a controversial event. No, I don’t mean the 2008 KYMAA math festival. I mean an event on Bellarmine’s campus that was held around 14 February. The stated purpose of the event is to raise funds and interest to fight violence against women, as stated on the web site. That particular link has no potentially offensive or vulgar terms, but other pages on that site do. I’m talking about something called V-Day, with V not for Violence or Valentine. Know what? I’d like to use actual terms, which are considered impolite, so I’ll send this beyond the more link. Click away if you wish.
Read the rest of this entry »

It’s rare to find a single thing that encapsulates both what I appreciate and what I disdain about a subject. The last minute and a half of this Colbert Report clip. In it, Philip Zimbardo tries to suggest that Lucifer was right, showing incomplete knowledge of theology. Stephen Colbert takes 30 seconds of national cable show time to provide proper perspective. And he gets cheered! When Dr. Zimbardo notes that the host learned well in Sunday School, the response is above: “I teach Sunday School, M—–F—–!” It’s funny. It’s also true, as Colbert notes in this Parade interview. There’s even a blog about Catholic Colbert, which contains clips and information on elements of faith in the show. I didn’t find the time where Colbert recited the Creed, but for an excellent example of Catholic social teaching, I recommend the segments on the 1969 South Carolina nurses’ strike.

The problem, though, is that last word. The juxtaposition of gentle church instruction and a vicious profanity causes us to laugh. It’s strange and unexpected. But, somewhere, I know Mr. Colbert can do better. Lots of comics rely on profanity to get a reaction, beginning about as soon as a kid understands why certain words are uncommon. Like sesquipedalian. That’s incongruous and funny, right? Ultimately, though, we move towards better ideas of irony and atypical situations and strange events, and only the mediocre comedians rely on shock. Because he’s not mediocre, I get frustrated when Stephen drops to that level.

That’s true about his show, and that’s true of his book, I Am America (and so can you!) Lots of parts are quite funny, like how all the figures are of him, and the fake Ordinary People, and the pre-annotated pages. That’s great. So why do he and his writers have to resort to vulgarity? They’re better than that. Without the f-bombs and bad innuendo, this book would be highly recommended. As it is, it drops to a 2 out of 5.

Bellarmine has an Easter Break, which allows me a little time to post reviews of books I’ve read this winter. The first is What Paul Meant, by Garry Wills. Dr. Wills doesn’t appear to have a Web page, because he’s of an older generation. This is part of his series that look at the early Church from a different perspective, which also includes perspectives on Jesus and the Gospels. This book is average on my scale, and receives a 2 out of 5. This book, and many books, would benefit by better use of white space, chapter sub-headings, and such. The other person I knew who read this book agreed. In parts, it’s too easy to get lost. The points look all the same, and just go on and on and on. Isn’t that weird for me to say? I’ve been changed by the visual generation, too.

In those long plain chapters, there are plenty of interesting things. Dr. Wills properly points out that we see Paul through the lens of 20 centuries of Church history. Paul’s viewpoint of the early Church had different context, and the words we use are not correct. In our context, there are better translations. With no fixed, written Gospel, Revelation is a better, less loaded term. Similarly, for ekklesia, “Church” brings to mind pews and big buildings, thus “Gathering” runs closer to what really happened. Reading this book forced me to consider what Paul was thinking when he wrote his notes, and what the early communities were thinking, and that Luke in Acts did not have the same first-person perspective. Historical perspective is good for a historical-psychological theologian.

Nevertheless, this book fails, and it fails because the author is still not fully detached from modern perspective. Many conservatives have this idea of “Founders’ Intent”, whether in the first-century Church or the first-decade US Constitution. I’ve long felt that determining true intent from short documents like letters or declarations is impossible; there just isn’t enough context. Invariably, one’s reading of intent is contaminated by one’s own perspective. For instance, a Justice that invokes “originalism” usually winds up serving modern interests, like those of corporations which did not exist during the “original” period. It’s amazing how often “originalism” looks new, and fails to see the multiple opinions that formed compromises for a document. It’s biased unbiasness.

Dr. Wills does that here. His anger at the Institutional Catholic Church, documented in earlier books like Papal Sin and Why I am a Catholic, comes forward here. The hierarchy in Jerusalem (as in today’s Vatican City) is almost never right. The key quote, from the end, I read as “Religion took over the legacy of Paul as it did that of Jesus - because they both opposed it.” Well then, why was Paul trying to assist the leaders of city communities? Why organize? Why standardize? The writer has his own biased unbiasness. That’s not an evil thing; it’s very difficult to remove personal feelings. I can’t all the time. Plus, exposing other biases is a great help. Nevertheless, what makes this book only average, besides the droning, is the reality of unclear founders’ intent.

About a month ago, political analyst Chuck Todd spoke on MSNBC. To paraphrase, he noted that “you go into the homes of Central Valley (CA) Latinos and you’ll see two portraits on the wall: one of the Pope and the other of JFK.”

I saw a portrait of JFK, in a Hispanic house, though I don’t remember seeing any photos of the Pope. There were Matchbooks in that house, too. It’s been a long while.