Chip’s Ravelings

Thoughts on religion, politics, life and death. And other banned topics.

Good Book

My 11th-grade daughter will be reading The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende this year. I decided to read it for myself, in part because she told me there was a lot of sex in it. I wasn’t sure a book with “a lot of sex” was appropriate  for 11th-grade girls. I’m still not sure.

Nevertheless, The House of the Spirits is a spectacular achievement, a book epic in its scope, full of tragic romance, love, and magic. It is one of the best books I have ever read. I highly recommend it. Sometimes it seems to be about the 1973 coup in Chile that led to the death of President Allende and government by a military junta. But it is really about the women of the Trueba family. Allende herself said of her fictional family that she needed no imagination to tell the story of the Truebas. Her own grandmother was clairvoyant; her grandfather was the model for Esteban Trueba. Indeed, the book feels too true to be merely fiction, which is the mark of the best fiction.

Now, I know my daughter will not suffer any harm from reading The House of the Spirits. She’s a sensible girl with a strong and independent sense of self. I don’t worry about her being influenced by it. But I don’t think she will like it much. I expect she will find the casual immorality, spiritism, and political oppression equally offensive. I’m not sure she will like the main characters much: Clara, Blanca, Alba. She’s a good student, so she will dutifully read it. Will it awaken in her a taste for great modern literature? I don’t honestly know. She has already read nearly all the Jane Austen novels and Jane Eyre, none of which have been required for class. She even read Gone With The Wind, even though she hated Scarlett O’Hara. I think she read it only because I bought it for her.

First Computer

My first computer was a Sinclair ZX-81, a masterpiece of low-cost design. The entire computer was smaller than a medium pizza box, but it did have some drawbacks. To keep down costs, it did not include a monitor, but to encourage wider adoption, it produced NTSC video, so it could be used with most television sets. I purchased a big, clunky stereo boombox with built in black and white television to go with it. I used the television as my display. The ZX-81 also supported standard cassette tape for digital storage. It wasn’t perfect, but it usually worked. The first thing I did when I got my boombox was void the warranty by opening it up and adding a switch that would allow me to run the television and cassette player at the same time. I could use it more conveniently with my ZX-81.

The computer itself wasn’t much to look at. It was smaller than a pizza box and had a cramped membrane keyboard. One of the first upgrades I made was a real keyboard. I also expanded the memory to 64 kb.

The ZX-81 sported a custom version of BASIC known to aficianados as “Clive Code,” after Clive Sinclair, the man behind the computer. Clive Code had some interesting and unique features. My favorite was VAL() function, which would evaluate a string as if it were code. It was possible to build very complex expressions using string variables and then have them execute as a single line of BASIC. In the early 1980s when I returned to college after a six-year stint in the Air Force, my ZX-81 went with me. The college had a DEC PDP-11 for students. (This was before PCs had become common everywhere). Since the native language on the PDP-11 was also a version of BASIC, students in numerical analysis were supposed to write all their programs in BASIC instead of in FORTRAN like the examples in the text. I would write my numerical analysis programs on my ZX-81. When they were debugged and working properly, I would print out a copy of the code, walk across campus to the Computer Center, and enter my code at one of the terminals on the PDP-11. Usually I could do what little translation was needed in my head. Occasionally, I found I could even write my program in more compact form on my ZX-81.

The printer driver actually shared code with the video driver, so it was always possible to print what was on the screen. Unlike the video driver, which ran from ROM, the print driver was copied into RAM before running. By tweaking it and adding your own code, you could print things that were higher resolution than could be displayed on the screen. Keep in mind that the printer used a print head that mimicked the scan lines on a television. It used electrostatic sparks to burn the surface of metallic coated paper. It was a marvel of cheap technology but not at all practical for business applications.

I learned what little I know about assembly language programming from my feeble attempts to write assembly language for the Z-80 chip in my ZX-81. I think it was the most educational toy I’ve ever owned. I wrote dozens of short, single-use programs with no utility beyond the momentary problem they were designed to solve. It was fun.

The Sinclair ZX-81’s success was short lived. Within a few years it had been entirely supplanted by other, more-capable systems. By the time the IBM PC was introduced, it was already an obsolete product. When my printer finally went out, it was impossible to find a repacement, and I had already moved on, too. Still, I sometimes feel a little wistful, thinking about how easy it was to write my own programs on the ZX-81. I can’t even begin to make headway with Java or C++.

Cheer Up

To my dear Christian friends and family, devastated by the results of yesterday’s elections, I offer these words of comfort from Psalm 46:

1 God is our refuge and strength,
an ever-present help in trouble.

2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way
and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

3 though its waters roar and foam
and the mountains quake with their surging.

No matter how cataclysmic or catastrophic events seem, we will not fear because God is our ever-present help. So let’s continue to pray and work and hope for the best. President-elect Obama is also in the hand of the Lord.

Obama Wins

After all the years of spin and downright falsehood, of declarations maintained in the teeth of incovenient facts, of a klaxon truthiness that threatened to drown out truth, what we Americans want more than anything from our President is plain truth. We don’t want to be lulled into stupor with comforting words or “economic stimulus packages.” We want to be told the way things really are, and we want to be told how they can be if we try. This is the challenge Barack Obama faces. It is a moral challenge, and he has the charisma to meet it. Does he have the strength? Does he have the character? Time will tell. I hope he does.

A Halloween Reflection

President George W. Bush hugging a trick-or-treater.

President George W. Bush hugging a trick-or-treater.

Sometimes it’s good to remember how fleeting popularity is. President Bush’s popularity is the lowest of any President since Richard Nixon was forced from office by scandal. Yet for a few months following September 11, 2001, he was golden. The man hasn’t changed, but our perception of him has. Once he rose to the occasion, calmed our fears, took charge, and made us feel that everything was going to be all right. We would find the terrorists and make them pay. We would not be cowed by Muslim fanatics. We would fight. We would win.

Now Bush is the man who got us into a needless war. He’s the man who allowed the economy to collapse. He’s the man who has not found the terrorists and has not made them pay.

Abraham Lincoln once observed that the real test of character is not adversity but power. For power exposes your insecurities. President Bush was not secure enough to welcome difference of opinion among his advisers. He has surrounded himself with those who tell him what he wants to hear and pushed away those who would tell him the truth. He has leaned too heavily on his Vice President in areas where he lacked experience. These failings, which seem too small to earn him such scorn and derision as the media and much of the public have heaped upon him, were too great for him to overcome. When he leaves office, he will likely leave as one of the country’s all-time least popular Presidents. But time will probably be kind to him again.

Meanwhile here is a picture of him from two years ago on Halloween. He was visiting Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. The little girl getting a presidential hug may have a very different perception of Bush than his current popularity would suggest.

Halloween

One of my earliest memories is of dressing up to go trick-or-treating. My mom draped a sheet over me and I wore a ghostly mask. My younger brother watched the whole process, but whenever I put the mask on he would cry in terror. If I took it back off, he would stop crying. I put on the mask and tried speaking soothingly to him but to no avail. Somehow when I put on my ghost costume, in his mind I became a ghost. I was transformed into what I pretended to be.

Growing up in the sixties, I never gave a thought to the meaning of Halloween. As far as I was concerned, it was candy time. I enjoyed dressing up, but the real appeal was sweets. In those days Halloween was less controversial than it has since become. It was just pretend and mostly for kids. In fact, it was one of the few holidays that seemed to be mostly for kids. The first few times I went, I had no idea what trick-or-treat meant or even that it was three words. To me it was a sort of incantation that caused adults to dispense candy one night out of the year.

In the late sixties and early seventies—about the time I got to be too old for trick-or-treating anyway—amid rumors of pins and razor blades hidden in apples and poisoned candy, Halloween trick-or-treating fell into disrepute. Despite evidence that the rumors were greatly exaggerated, the reputation of trick-or-treat as harmless fun was forever tarnished. Parents began to accompany their children on their outings and often chose houses of known friends and neighbors while avoiding strangers. Safety for the children became a greater concern. While trick-or-treat remains popular today, it is often practiced in venues or manners considered safer for children.

Where did trick-or-treat come from? For that matter, where did Halloween come from, and what is the origin of the unusual customs associated with it?

Halloween originated as a Celtic harvest festival called Samhain. Most authorities regard Samhain as the start of the Celtic year, their New Year. The Celts, who inhabited Ireland and Scotland, were mostly farmers and herders, dependent on the harvest of crops to see them through the long winter. At the end of the harvest, the people would meet together and take stock of their crops to decide how best to ration them for the winter. There was no going out to an all-night grocer if you ran out of flour. You had to make it through the winter and much of the following spring with the stores you had.

This accounting took place on the first of November, but the Celts reckoned days from dusk rather than dawn, so by our reckoning it was the night of October thirty-first. The people built huge fires and slaughtered animals. They threw the bones of the slaughtered animals into the bone fires, or bonfires, as they have since come to be known. They feasted and celebrated and made sacrifices to their gods.

In Celtic lore, transitional times are regarded as spiritually significant. The twilight hours of dusk and dawn are magical times when beings from the unseen world may walk the earth. Similarly, Samhain, a transition time between summer and winter, was regarded as a time when the boundary between this world and the Otherworld was especially thin, when the dead might reappear among the living or the living sojourn among the dead. The accounting for winter stores led to speculations about what the coming year would bring. Who would marry? Who would sink into poverty? Who would have a child? Who would die? Since spirits of the dead and other unseen beings were abroad at that time, it made sense to invoke them in an effort to determine what the future held. The Celts used various divination methods, some involving apples and nuts. For example, two nuts were placed side by side in the embers. If the nuts rolled toward one another, it signified a cozy and happy marriage. If they rolled apart, it meant discord and strife. Spending a long winter with a quarrelsome spouse was not a pleasant prospect.

In addition to divination methods, some of which still survive as party games today, the Celts also put out food for the wandering spirits of the dead, carrying the food away from their homes to discourage the dead from visiting them. Some authorities say that families would set a place at the table for anyone who had died in the past year. From this custom is said to have arisen the modern practice of trick-or-treat, but I think the connection is at best distant and tenuous and more likely fabricated. In fact, modern trick-or-treating appears to have arisen spontaneously during the 1930s. Prior to that time, though pranking on Halloween was common, ritual begging was not. Some have connected modern trick-or-treating with a medieval practice called “souling.” On All Souls Day, November 2nd, the poor—often children—would disguise themselves and go door-to-door offering to pray for the dead in return for gifts of food or a few coins. There is little evidence, however, of souling being carried over from the Old World to the New. Modern trick-or-treat owes more to the marketing efforts of candy companies than to the customs of ancient Celts or medieval beggars.

The wearing of costumes is said to have originated with the practice of disguising children as ghosts or other creatures of the darkness to protect them. Parents apparently believed that the spirits and night creatures would leave their children alone if they looked like one of their own. However, evidence for this practice is sketchy. Celts in Scotland appear not to have practiced guising as part of Halloween until modern times.

Celebration of Halloween in the United States was rare until after the great influx of Irish and Scottish during the mid nineteenth century. Prior to that there were isolated celebrations connected with All Saints Day. The Irish, however, brought their customs and rituals with them, and Halloween celebrations became more common. Postcards from the late nineteenth century show many customs still practiced today, including bobbing for apples. Although some authorities connect bobbing for apples with the Roman feast of Pamona, also celebrated at the end of October, I could find no connection beyond the fact that the Romans ate apples at Pamona. To my mind eating apples and bobbing for them are very different activities.

Pranking appears to have a long association with Halloween. Even in rural areas, Halloween was a night for tipping over outhouses, unhinging gates, and hauling wagons and carts up on barn roofs. Some believe that adults encouraged trick-or-treat as a way to discourage pranking, but evidence for that is mixed. During the forties and fifties, radio and television shows that depicted trick-or-treat often also showed adults puzzled by the practice. Children had to explain it to them. In some cases, adults appear to have regarded the practice as a form of extortion, reacting with anger. Since the sixties, however, Halloween, along with most of its rituals, has become increasingly popular. Since 2003, Americans have increased spending on Halloween by 50%. Some decorated house displays now rival those seen at Christmas, and spending on Halloween sweets now outpaces spending on Christmas candies.

All in all, despite themes of death, darkness, and supernatural evil, the modern celebration of Halloween has little to do with Samhain. I think it is hard to understand its widespread appeal. Halloween is a very strange holiday. Unlike other holidays, it has neither civic connections nor connections to a specific religious tradition. In fact, while nearly everyone celebrates Halloween, who can say exactly what it is we are celebrating?

Voted With Bush

I’m confused. I’ve seen several campaign ads in recent weeks attacking Republican candidates for “voting with Bush.” One ad announces ominously that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. I’m not sure what this means. The last time I checked, the President was not allowed to vote in Congress. Does it mean that McCain voted for legislation that the President signed into law 90% of the time? Yet the President has signed into law almost every bill presented to him. In fact, President Bush has exercised his veto power only 12 times during his presidency, all since July 2006. You have to go all the way back to Warren Harding to find a President who vetoed fewer bills. Before I get bent out of shape about anyone “voting with Bush” 90% of the time, I’d like to see a list of legislators who opposed legislation the President signed into law more than 10% of the time.

Probability

I heard a caller on a local radio station this evening say something in praise of her 17-year-old son. The host said, “You must have a good relationship with your son.”

“Well, I have three sons,” said the caller. “So I have a 33% chance of having a good relationship.”

Of course, this was a flippant remark not meant as a serious estimate of the probability of having a good relationship. But it got me to wondering about the issue.

Suppose relationships can be unequivocally classified as either good or bad, and that both are equally likely. Then the probability of a good relationship with one son is 50%. With three sons, the probability of at least one good relationship out of the three is 87.5%, much better than 33%. In fact, for the probability to be only 33% for at least one good relationship with three sons, the probability of a good relationship with one son would have to be about 12.5%.

Probability can be tricky.

Suppose you are on a jury in a murder trial. A key piece of evidence comes from an eyewitness who claims that he saw the accused getting into a yellow cab. In tests the witness reliably identifies yellow cabs as yellow 95% of the time. The other 5% he mistakes them for white. He also correctly identifies white cabs 80% of the time, but 20% of the time mistakes them for yellow. However, 90% of the city cabs are white, and 10% are yellow. What is the probability that the witness actually saw a yellow cab?

Suppose there are 1000 cabs in the city. 900 are white, and 100 are yellow. Of the 900 white cabs, the witness would correctly identify 720 as white and misidentify 180 as yellow. Likewise, he would correctly identify 95 of the yellow cabs as yellow and misidentify 5 as white. Therefore, he would identify 275 cabs as yellow of which 180 are really white. The probability that the cab was yellow is 95/275 = 35%. Despite the reliability of the witness, the actual number of cabs of each color makes the probability of a mistaken identification 65%. It could easily be enough for reasonable doubt.

New Name

In deference to Nick over at Nick’s Musings (who incidentally pointed out that I had plagiarized his title), I am renaming my blog from Chip’s Musings to Chip’s Ravelings. This also brings it more in line with the blog I publish on Blogger. I have also decided to publish the same material in both places rather than having two disparate blogs.

New Definition

bald-er-dash, n. 1. The mad run an investment banking CEO makes for the exit, so called because in his rush he loses his toupee.