Slashdot geeks really bug me. Every December on Slashdot there erupt, like clockwork, a bunch of discussions about Christmas and dozens if not hundreds of flames claiming it's "not a real holiday" or "has nothing to do with Christ." See today's poll discussion, for instance.
This is insane. First of all, it is most certainly not the case that Christians are just celebrating Yule, or Jul, or Saturnalia or the Winter Solstice. I mean, it's a little weird that we sing carols like "Deck the Halls" which mentions Yule three times and Christmas not at all, and that we use the word "Yuletide" as if it were synonymous with Christmas. But did (or do) the pagan observers of the solstice sing songs about the Little Town of Bethlehem or the Herald Angels Singing or the "holy Infant so tender and mild"? Did they put nativity scenes out on their front lawns? Did they go to church services to read from Scripture about the prophecy of the Messiah and the story of the Nativity, to hear sermons about the meaning of the birth of Christ and to receive Holy Communion? No, they did not. And all the lamented commercialization notwithstanding, there are millions of Christians who do just those things every year. Don't try to tell me it's the same holiday.
Christianity is all about intent and how you see things anyway. This is inherent in the modern Evangelical view that no matter how righteous your life is, unless you do everything in Jesus' name you are damned, but it shows up in less perverse places as well. Most Christians probably do not literally believe that bread and wine are physically transformed into flesh and blood when they are consecrated for Communion (after all, they still taste the same afterward...); it's the symbolism that counts. To this way of thinking, the fact that Christians observe December 25th in Jesus' name makes all the difference in the world.
Additionally, I remember being taught that Christmas is celebrated in late December because the birth of Christ represents the return of God's light to a world darkened by sin. Note that the 25th is after the solstice, consistent with this interpretation. I do not deny anything anyone says about the historical origin of the holiday, but repeat that for Christians observing it in modern times it is the intent that matters.
As a final note on the subject, it makes me a little sick when people accuse one religious, ethnic or cultural group of "stealing" or "co-opting" or "corrupting" the traditions of another. This proprietary attitude is completely at odds with living peacefully in a melting pot.
A second point is the laments over the commercialization of Christmas. I am of two minds on this subject. First of all, there is nothing wrong with manufacturers and retailers of Christmas-related stuff and gift items trying to convince the public to buy things. That's what businesses do. Second, the exchanging of presents can easily be reconciled with the religious meaning of Christmas: after all, it's the holiday when we celebrate God giving the world the greatest gift of all. Christmas is a traditional season for charity (conveniently, it's also the end of the tax year, when people go to Goodwill to unload all the old junk they can). The Santa Claus legend is derived at least partially from that of St. Nicholas, a bishop who is supposed to have been very generous to poor families. The tradition of giving people things, even at some personal cost, is perfectly in line with celebrating the birth of Christ.
On the other hand, some of the consequences of this are unfortunate: there seems to be an obsession with giving everyone in one's life a present of some kind, resulting in the exchange of a lot of cheap, pointless and (worst of all) Christmas-themed items that are not really enjoyed by the recipients. Children who expect to be lavished with gifts become greedy little brats around Christmas. And there's only so many times you can hear "Holly Jolly Christmas" and "Jingle Bell Rock" at your local shopping mall before you start to want out of the whole thing.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
One more war?
Today for the first time (and probably the last, since I'm about to move to California) I walked up to Pittsburgh's Soldiers and Sailors Memorial. It was closed so I couldn't go inside, but I read all the signage in front and checked out the statues and the WWII torpedo.
On either side of the steps leading up to the front door, the low retaining walls are divided into polished marble squares, each bearing the name, description and casualty statistics of one of America's wars. On the left side were the Revolutionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil and Spanish-American Wars. On the right were World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam. The descriptions were patriotic and reverent, as a good memorial should be: the Civil War pitted the Union against "Southern separatists and slaveholders. The Union was preserved." We fought in World War II in response to "the infamous sneak attack on Pearl Harbor". And in Vietnam, our forces "were superior in battle, but it was a war of attrition and containment. Public support lessened [... and] the last troops were brought home in 1975." Or whatever the year was, history isn't my thing.
There were five wars on the left and four on the right. A fifth, blank, polished marble square followed the Vietnam War's, standing ready to record one more war. Will it be the war we're fighting now in Iraq? What will that war be called when it's over? And how will the patriotic, nationalistic description of it sound? We're not responding to an infamous sneak attack this time -- unless history dares to remember this war as a response to 9/11 -- and we're not rushing to the aid of our allies like in World War I or answering the "request" of a local government to repel aggression like the wall said we did in Vietnam. And how will it end? Will we end up with two wars of attrition and containment with no public support on the same monument wall, one right after the other?
And what will the casualty numbers look like next to the other wars of the past hundred years?
And what kind of ending will this be to the wall's story of America?
On either side of the steps leading up to the front door, the low retaining walls are divided into polished marble squares, each bearing the name, description and casualty statistics of one of America's wars. On the left side were the Revolutionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil and Spanish-American Wars. On the right were World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam. The descriptions were patriotic and reverent, as a good memorial should be: the Civil War pitted the Union against "Southern separatists and slaveholders. The Union was preserved." We fought in World War II in response to "the infamous sneak attack on Pearl Harbor". And in Vietnam, our forces "were superior in battle, but it was a war of attrition and containment. Public support lessened [... and] the last troops were brought home in 1975." Or whatever the year was, history isn't my thing.
There were five wars on the left and four on the right. A fifth, blank, polished marble square followed the Vietnam War's, standing ready to record one more war. Will it be the war we're fighting now in Iraq? What will that war be called when it's over? And how will the patriotic, nationalistic description of it sound? We're not responding to an infamous sneak attack this time -- unless history dares to remember this war as a response to 9/11 -- and we're not rushing to the aid of our allies like in World War I or answering the "request" of a local government to repel aggression like the wall said we did in Vietnam. And how will it end? Will we end up with two wars of attrition and containment with no public support on the same monument wall, one right after the other?
And what will the casualty numbers look like next to the other wars of the past hundred years?
And what kind of ending will this be to the wall's story of America?
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
I have spoken some more
Yesterday I joined the ranks of the wikipedians. I can see this becoming a big timesink, as many of the articles on programming languages and related topics suuuuuuuck. Example: "Dynamic variable scoping is when you scope a variable in a programming language by replacing the existing variable of that name with a new variable temporarily, for instance for the duration of a function call. " First of all, no it's not. Second, the word "scope" is linked to an article which (correctly, I think) gives no indication of what the word would mean when used as a verb in this way. Third of all, no, that's really not what it means. Not at all. Not to pick on whoever wrote that, but in my expert opinion it's a totally false statement. Sorry.
If the few contributions I've made so far do not elicit huge negative reaction, Dynamic Scoping will feel my wrath.
If the few contributions I've made so far do not elicit huge negative reaction, Dynamic Scoping will feel my wrath.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Wanted
Wanted: a free library for linear algebra including eigenvectors, or for statistics including principal component analysis, written in SML or in a .NET language.
Elissa is frustrated by the confusing output of freely available PCA tools.
She is also frustrated by the fact that lab politics is forcing her to give a talk on Friday that she hasn't prepared, but there's nothing I can do about that.
Elissa is frustrated by the confusing output of freely available PCA tools.
She is also frustrated by the fact that lab politics is forcing her to give a talk on Friday that she hasn't prepared, but there's nothing I can do about that.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
I have spoken
Today I went from long-time Lambda The Ultimate reader to first-time Lambda The Ultimate poster.
The topic: What is a calculus?
The topic: What is a calculus?
Friday, January 07, 2005
Check, 1, 2,...
Well, I have to say this is pretty cool. I can't really say yet whether I will ever post to this blog or not, or whether anyone will ever read anything I post here or not (I have no delusions of grandeur), but I can say for damn sure that blogger.com makes creating a blog just about as easy as I could imagine it ever being. They really do this for free? What an age we live in.
This blog is for my opinions and whatnot, which will be on the subject of computer science, programming languages and type theory at least as often as anything else, unless I completely surprise myself. Every now and then I have opinions about politics, entertainment and stuff, but they're even less informed than my professional opinions on the subject I study for a living. They would be a waste of ink if we were still in an era of writing things down, but as we're not I suppose the only thing to go to waste is my time. And the time of whoever will read this nonsense.
Enough for now. I haven't even set up a profile yet or anything.
By the way, the name "See Joe Vanderwaart" is just based on the fact that C is my real first initial. I thought about "See Joe Vee" but I couldn't convince myself that that wasn't even lamer. Apparently one gets to change one's title later on if one wants? What an age we live in.
This blog is for my opinions and whatnot, which will be on the subject of computer science, programming languages and type theory at least as often as anything else, unless I completely surprise myself. Every now and then I have opinions about politics, entertainment and stuff, but they're even less informed than my professional opinions on the subject I study for a living. They would be a waste of ink if we were still in an era of writing things down, but as we're not I suppose the only thing to go to waste is my time. And the time of whoever will read this nonsense.
Enough for now. I haven't even set up a profile yet or anything.
By the way, the name "See Joe Vanderwaart" is just based on the fact that C is my real first initial. I thought about "See Joe Vee" but I couldn't convince myself that that wasn't even lamer. Apparently one gets to change one's title later on if one wants? What an age we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)