The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Daryl McCullough:

There was an essay in Analog Science Fiction magazine years ago by somebody---maybe Spider Robinson, maybe Tom Easton, I don't remember---about this very subject. He said something along the lines of there being two types of (good) novelists(he was talking about science fiction writers, but it probably applies more generally). The first kind is like a shooting star---he comes out of nowhere, light up the entire sky with his brilliance, and then vanishes. His first novel is typically his best, and the rest of his life is pretty much an anticlimax.

The second kind of novelist starts off slow and picks up steam. He starts off completely derivative; he's just imitating the authors he liked reading. His first few novels are utter dreck, barely worth the paper they are printed on. But gradually, over the course of many years, he gets better. Pretty soon, he isn't copying anybody---young writers are copying him.

I wish I could remember the details, like who wrote it and what writers he put into what category. I think he considered the old-timers like Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson to be in this latter category.

I think the same sort of division works in popular music, as well. There are the people who seemingly create something completely new, and then there are those (including some of the best: the Beatles, Eric Clapton, the Rolling Stones) who just start out imitating the musicians they liked when they were kids (Elvis, BB King, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc.)

It's certainly true that scientists know more about the chemistry/physics/biology/etc. of various health risks than the general public. However, I don't think that it follows that we should believe the report from a scientific organization about some risk is the last word on the subject. Science is very good at foundational questions, such as what is the molecular structure of hemoglobin, and what is the nature of gravity. It really isn't tremendously successful in answering many practical questions such as whether substance X causes cancer. Those questions do eventually get answered, and they get answered by scientists. However, before the final answer comes, there can be many tentative answers, and those tentative answers can contradict one another. Worse, we often can only distinguish final answers from tentative answers in hindsight.

Derek James wrote:

But I got it. Russert's a shill for the GOP, basically for using the Treasury Department as a source of information...and I'm an idiot for thinking otherwise.

Well, yeah. There was nothing particularly brave about Russert challenging Dean, who's basically a nobody. If he had similarly taken on Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush, that would have shown some guts.

I'm past the point of blaming Naderites, or the press, or Gore's lack-luster campaign, or Clinton's scandals, or shenanigans in Florida or at the Supreme Court. But whatever the contributing factors, it seems to me that we (the American people) have gotten ourselves the worst President in living memory. (Not too many people are still alive from the days of Calvin Coolidge...)

Of course, I seem to be in a minority---the majority seem to think Bush is doing pretty well. But I have to credit that to American optimism. Most Americans prefer to note that the glass is 1/10 full, rather than 9/10 empty.

Comment statistics for Daryl McCullough on the Electrolite blog

Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.