Manners: A Virtue?

A reader writes:

Is it a virtue (minor as it may be) to have or possess "good manners", ie, decent table manners?

It seems to me that if one has never had the opportunity to have been "taught" good manners, then no one would expect such niceties.  (For instance, someone in a remote area that has not had any need or exposure to the Western idea of good table manners.)  but, on the other hand, if someone has grown up in a culture that has placed some value on nice table manners – and has been taught them as such, and if that person were a Christian, it might be considered part of his/her Christian duty to display these nice manners out of concern for others, (ie, by not grossing-them-out with unsightly table manners – or lack there of.)

This "concern for others" might be interpreted as part of the virtue of charity for others – not just thinking of oneself , and what is easiest or most comfortable for oneself, if others is not important to him/her.

The following thoughts occur to me:

1) Humans need to interact with each other in a smooth manner.

2) In many circumstances, manners and etiquette facilitate smooth interaction with humans.

3) Therefore, in many circumstances humans need manners and etiquette.

4) To faciliate human needs is an act of charity.

5) Therefore, in many circumstances manners and etiquette are a matter of charity.

6) Whatever is a matter of charity is a virtue.

7) Therefore, in many circumstances manners and etiquette are a matter of virtue.

This being said, several additional thoughts suggest themselves:

8) Manners and etiquette tend, by their nature, to be either largely or completely arbitrary. They are like driving on the right or the left side of the road. Neither is markedly better than the other in and of itself, but only due to common usage. Therefore, manners and etiquette should not be looked upon as sacrosanct. In some cultures, burping during a meal is considered rude, while in others it may be considered a sign of appreciation for the food one is eating.

9) The seriousness with which a particular set of manners should be taken depends on the circumstances. For example, it is of the utmost importance that proper protocol be observed when negotiating a peace treaty between nations, but far less significant when close friends or family members are interacting in a private setting. In the former setting, the consequences of a violation (e.g., loss of human life) are greater and the amount of tolerance that may be expected is lower. In the latter setting, the consequences are lower (e.g., loss of human life) is lesser and the amount of tolerance that may be expected is greater.

10) There is such a thing as placing too much weight on manners and etiquette. The whole point of manners and etiquette is that they facilitate certain human goods, but if the niceties of social interaction take precedence over these good or other equal goods then they are becoming counterproductive. Some individuals in particular may be sufficiently concerned with the proper observance of "the rules" that sight is lost of the goods that these rules are intended to foster. For example, it is considered rude to yell at a person, but if a child is about to do something highly dangerous, yelling is appropriate. Observing the "Don’t yell" rule in that case would endanger the child.

11) The relaxation of the rules in particular cases therefore itself cann be a matter of charity. It is not charitable to insist on the observation of standard etiquette rules (e.g., not yelling at a person) when a greater good is at stake (e.g., a child wandering into traffic).

12) We have a greater incentive to relax the rules with those closest to us, both because we have a greater duty to look after their interests (as with a child who may stray into traffic) or because we stand to benefit from them in a greater manner (as with spouses). Therefore, with those closest to us we generally both assume greater tolerance and show greater tolerance.

13) Simultaneously, since (as Aquinas points out) we have a greater duty of love toward those closest to us, we have a greater motive to observe the rules of manners and etiquette with regard to them.

There is thus something of a paradox in the calculus of charity: We should show greater charity for those closest to us, which leads to both a motive for greater observance of the rules and greater tolerance of their violation.

Oh, and one las thing:

14) Men, by nature, tend to be less concerned with manners than women. That’s not to say that they are unconcerned, just less concerned. Probably has something to do with the fact that men are physically and psychologically designed to provide the primary family defense functions.

Why We Need The Electoral College

In the wake of the recent Democratic defeat there are sure to be calls for the abolition of the electoral college and its replacement with the election of the president by a direct vote with a simple majority.

The way the electoral college works, the president is elected by a majority vote of the electors. Each state has one elector per member in the House of Representatives plus one elector per member of the Senate. States have members of the House based on their population (with the stipulation that each state has at least one), with a total of 435 House members.  But the Senate does not have proportional representation. Each state has two senators, regardless of its population. With fifty states, that means a hundred senators. The District of Columbia also gets three electors, so 435 + 100 +3 = 538, the current number of electors.

Of those, you need a simple majority, or 270 for a clear win. (If there is a tie, then there is a special procedure in which the House picks the president and the Senate picks the vice president, but let’s not go there.)

Now, a word about the way the House and the Senate: As you likely know, the reason that the House has proportional representation and the Senate does not is that it’s an attempt to balance the interests of the many with the interests of the few. The fact that populous states get more representatives in the House means that the interests of populous states get looked after. The fact that all states have equal representation in the Senate means that the interests of low-population states are looked after, so that the representatives of a simple majority of the population can’t simply step on the interests of the low-population states.

A similar role is played in the electoral college by having electors corresponding to a state’s Senate representation. It keeps the electoral college from having purely proportional representation and thus helps balance the interests of high and low population states.

That’s a good thing.

Here’s a map I came up with illustraing why:

Big9

The blue colored states are what you might call "the Big 9"–i.e., the states with the most population. Together, the Big 9 have more than 50% of the U.S. population in them. The other 41 states–"the Little 41," as we might say–have just under 50%.

Since the Big 9 have nowehere near 50% of the U.S. landmass, the only way they can have more than 50% of the population is for them to have Big Cities in them. They are Urbanized (even Texas and California, though to a lesser degree than the northeastern blue states in this illustration).

(FWIW, the states are not all shown to scale due; Alaska in particular should be way bigger.)

Here is why we need the electoral college: It’s a way of protecting the small (less populous) states from domination by the giant (high population) ones. All a candidate would need to do to win the presidency with a simple majority of the population vote would be to get the votes of the Big 9 (e.g., by making them elaborate promises to be paid for by the Little 41) and then he could completely ignore the interests of the Little 41.

In practice, of course, no candidate would get all and only the votes of the folks in the Big 9. His opponent would get some of those votes as well, but then he himself would get some votes in the Little 41, so the principle still remains: By targeting just these nine states, which in the main are urbanized or at least contain large urban centers, a candidate could win the presidency and completely ignore the interests of the Little 41.

The electora college prevents that from happening by giving the Little 41 extra clout in the presidential election, meaning that a broader mix have their interests taken into account than otherwise would happen. It’s not a perfect system, but there’s a logic to it that you might want to be aware of the next time you hear someone calling for the abolition of the electoral college.

Giant Volcano In Iceland Threatens Europe

VolcanoThe BBC is reporting (excerpts):

A spectacular volcanic eruption under an Iceland glacier has forced
airlines to divert flights to avoid flying through gas emissions from
the blast.

The volcano first erupted on [last] Monday, sending thick black smoke and ash heading towards continental Europe.

Oli Thor Arnarsson of the Icelandic Meteorological
Office said a change in the wind could send the cloud toward central
Europe.

"We are speculating that the eruption should be clear
tomorrow. But if there are more eruptions, we may have ash over central
Europe," he said.

GET THE STORY.

UPDATE! The Daily Planet is reporting that France has pre-emptively surrendered to the volcano and offered it a sacrificial offering of cheese.

No Smoking On Titan!

Dcdsaturngirl2_1New data from the Cassini probe has revealed that Titan is one weird moon. Excerpts:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The surface of Saturn’s moon Titan may be covered by thick drifts of combustible organic "snow" floating on lakes of liquid methane or water and ammonia ice flows, NASA (news – web sites) scientists said on Friday.

Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California have been poring over new radar and infrared images of Titan taken this week by the Cassini spacecraft in the closest fly-by ever of the smog-covered moon.

The slice of terrain captured by Cassini’s instruments in Tuesday’s fly-by showed sharply contrasting bright and dark areas with sharp and grooved features that scientists believe may be "wrinkle ridges," where the moon’s thin plates collided.

The data also seems to show that Titan could be covered in up to 656 feet of fluffy hydrocarbon "snow" that fell out of the heavy atmosphere. It is still not clear how much of the surface is liquid and how much is solid and whether the "land masses" are ice, scientists said.

"We are beginning to see a few things we recognize, but most of what we see is very alien," geophycist Laurence Soderblom said.

"The surface could be very flammable," scientist Toby Owen said at a Friday briefing. "We can imagine flammable swamps on Titan with liquid methane and flammable aerosols."

Contacted by the Daily Planet, 30th-century superheroine Saturn Girl (who is a native of Titan) said: "There is a reason why we have a planet-wide ban on smoking on my homeworld. If you visit Titan, leave your matches and lighters at home. We still haven’t recovered from the Great Marlboro Disaster."

FIND OUT MORE.

Godzilla Prepares To Gobble Boy

MONSTER ISLAND (DAILY PLANET) – Supertitious natives inhabiting the atoll containing Monster Island have been discovered to be still practicing child sacrifice, as shown in the photograph below, showing a native boy being offered to Godzilla in an attempt to avert his wrath from their island.

U.N. officials have expressed horror at this practice, which is a violation of the international human rights charter.

It is also ineffective said Dr. Toshiro Ichiozaki of Tokyo University (Dept. of Monstrous Studies). "One kid is not going to satify the hunger of a 400-ft. tall beast like Godzilla. Invariably when islanders do this the beast simply eats the kid and then rampages through the village anyway. Under the influence of superstition, villagers have interpreted this as a sign that the sacrifice wasn’t of acceptable quality, but it isn’t a quality problem, it’s a quantity problem."

Dr. Toshiro added: "Further, the sacrifices themselves become ‘bait’ for Godzilla, luring him to their islands instead of letting him stay in the Monster Island Nature Preserve that ecologists insisted on creating for him in the 1970s."

Godzillaboy

CORRECTION: The above picture is actually a wire photo captioned "A boy plays under a ten-meter-high giant statue of Godzilla displayed at a botanical garden in Yokosuka, suburban Tokyo.(AFP/Toru Yamanaka)."

Scientists Try To De-Cloak Killer Stealth Comets

See, they think that there may be comets out there with very low reflectivity, making them hard to spot. Such comets might sneak up on Earth like a stealth bomber sneaking up on an enemy base and then smack into it (the Earth) with planetkilling force.

Since we can’t (yet) see stealth comets, we don’t know how many there may be. Hopefully, there are none, but if there are some then the chances of a planetkilling impact are higher than we’ve previously thought.

Fortunately, scientists have a new tool they hope will "de-cloak" the stealth comets that may be out there sneaking up on us.

GET THE STORY.

No word whether the same tool will work on Klingon or Romulan birds of prey.

FYI

BTW, folks, I know there are a number of good comments discussions going on right now, and I encourage y’all to (politely!) have fun in them. I’m afraid that I’ve got some stuff going on the next couple of days that will prevent me from participating in the comments discussions that much, so if I’m not answering it’s because I’m not able to at the moment. Blog entries will be going up on the usual schedule though, so do stop by over the weekend.

Have a good ‘un!

Democrat Hopes Dead In Dixie?

I’ve been doing some analysis of historical electoral college voting maps, and I hope to have it ready to share soon. There are some interesting history lessons on these maps about how politics in America has evolved over time. One thing struck me in examining the recent ones: The conversion of the South from a Democrat stronghold to a Republican stronghold wasn’t a complete and instantaneous thing. In fact, the two most recent Democrat presidents (Carter and Clinton) were both Southerners who pulled significant electoral votes from Southern states.

This, of course, suggests an obvious potential strategy for Democrats: Nominate Southerners in the future and you’ll do better in the electoral college. Picking up a few Southern states can allow the Northern Alliance to get enough votes to push you over the magic 270. This is an obvious thing, one I’ve thought about before, and one I’m sure many Democratic movers and shakers have thought about. But Bob Novak points out a problem resulting from Tuesday’s election:

In the wake of
Kerry’s unimpressive candidacy, Democrats ponder the alternative of
Howard Dean’s radicalism that is even further removed from the
political mainstream. The more attractive course would be a return to
the artful Southerner model of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton —
conservative in style, liberal in substance. But with the Republican
sweep in Dixie, there are no such Democrats to choose from — certainly
not Sen. John Edwards, who as vice presidential candidate exerted no
impact in his own state of North Carolina. Sen. Hillary Clinton as the
presidential nominee in 2008 would only compound the party’s dilemma [Source].

This is something that hadn’t quite struck me before. Even if the Dems might want to nominate more candidates on the mold of Bill Clinton, they will find it increasingly difficult to do so. There are only two basic offices that put you in position to run for the presidency: senator and governor (vice-president doesn’t count since  vice-presidents are almost invariably senators or governors first). You have to be one of these two things before you are likely to be perceived as a credible presidential candidate.

But the Dems can’t come up with a Southern nominee if there are no Southern Democratic senators and governors. We’re not at the zero number just yet, but we’re getting close, with Republicans holding all but four Southern senatorships and a similar number of governors, and many of these are not suitable presidential candidates for a variety of reasons. Not every senator or governor makes a good candidate for president: Just look at Howard Dean (a governor) or Ted Kennedy (a senator).

If the Republican consolidation presently underway in the South gets to a certain point, it may become impossible for Democrats to pursue a Southern strategy for lack of potential candidates, quite apart from the increasing radicalization of the party (which would disincline them to nominate a moderate Southern Democrat).

It may be possible for them to raid other red state areas for candidates with Southern appeal, but not for long if the consolidation continues apace there as well.