"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
30.4.04
LINK: Isn't it cute when non Christians talk about Christians as if they were describing the behavior of chimpanzees? No, I don't think so either:
"During a televised debate in the 1999 presidential primary in Iowa, the three Republican contenders, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and George Bush, were asked what "political philosopher or thinker" had most influenced them and why. Forbes cited John Locke; Keyes, the Founding Fathers; and Bush, "Christ, because he changed my heart." In the clip of this moment that appears in The Jesus Factor, Bush's sincerity is evident; unfortunately, so is his intellectual poverty and lack of historical referents. We're told that he reads the Bible every day (the way some of us might read, say, the newspaper) and that he once brandished a copy of it during a speech on federal funding for faith-based charities, saying, "This is the only handbook you need. This handbook is a good go-by." As the Rev. Welton Gaddy, leader of a liberal Christian coalition, points out, in a nation founded on freedom of religious practice, promoting the Good Book as a manual for public policy is a disquieting choice. Especially since, of the $100 million so far dispensed to faith-based charities by the Bush administration, not one dollar has gone to a Jewish or Muslim organization."
"During a televised debate in the 1999 presidential primary in Iowa, the three Republican contenders, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and George Bush, were asked what "political philosopher or thinker" had most influenced them and why. Forbes cited John Locke; Keyes, the Founding Fathers; and Bush, "Christ, because he changed my heart." In the clip of this moment that appears in The Jesus Factor, Bush's sincerity is evident; unfortunately, so is his intellectual poverty and lack of historical referents. We're told that he reads the Bible every day (the way some of us might read, say, the newspaper) and that he once brandished a copy of it during a speech on federal funding for faith-based charities, saying, "This is the only handbook you need. This handbook is a good go-by." As the Rev. Welton Gaddy, leader of a liberal Christian coalition, points out, in a nation founded on freedom of religious practice, promoting the Good Book as a manual for public policy is a disquieting choice. Especially since, of the $100 million so far dispensed to faith-based charities by the Bush administration, not one dollar has gone to a Jewish or Muslim organization."
WELL: my quick response to Walloworld's response to my flirtation with authoritarianism: I'm trying to cash out my tentative belief that there's something to Rousseau's ex-post censor concept (that someone should enforce collective unanimous judgments on certain topics, the same way someone enforces collective unanimous decisions (i.e. laws)), and something deeply wrong with Mill's argument that a society can't be healthy when everyone agrees uncontroversially on the rightness of some opinion by asking what would it be like if everyone (individually or collectively) ended up having the same (normatively right) opinion. It's not clear to me that it would be problematic, and it seems like an odd restriction on people's power that they can't do certain things to enforce their unanimous opinions, even when normatively right. I'm not sure exactly where this is going, but I'll be kicking it around in my head some over the weekend, and see what I come up with.
LINK: Kevin Yaroch has a picture of the new Iraqi flag, and though he ably discusses the pros and cons of having a new flag, he misses the most obvious point: it's butt-ugly.
HEH: from nyyfans.com:
"Please note: I haven’t even mentioned Scooter, the Mentally Impaired Talking Baseball."
I saw it when they first introduced this device, to explain how a pitcher throws a knuckleball. I was expecting one of those things where they show how the pitcher holds the ball and releases it, and what it's like for a hitter to try and hit it. I believe the explanation they gave went like this: "a fastball goes like this [bad animation shows ball go straight from pitcher to catcher], but a knuckleball goes like this [bad animation shows ball leave pitcher's hand and go around in circles, etc, before reaching catcher]." I felt like, even had I been the target audience for that segment (7 year olds?), I would've thought they were insulting my intelligence.
"Please note: I haven’t even mentioned Scooter, the Mentally Impaired Talking Baseball."
I saw it when they first introduced this device, to explain how a pitcher throws a knuckleball. I was expecting one of those things where they show how the pitcher holds the ball and releases it, and what it's like for a hitter to try and hit it. I believe the explanation they gave went like this: "a fastball goes like this [bad animation shows ball go straight from pitcher to catcher], but a knuckleball goes like this [bad animation shows ball leave pitcher's hand and go around in circles, etc, before reaching catcher]." I felt like, even had I been the target audience for that segment (7 year olds?), I would've thought they were insulting my intelligence.
29.4.04
THOUGHTS ON THE END OF COLLEGE: From a great thinker:
"Well, I don't, I don't really think that the end can be assessed...uh as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like, it's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe you say the...if the universe is indeed infinite then how what does that mean? How far is is t...is all the way and then if it stops what's stoppin' it and what's behind what's stoppin' it, so what's the end, you know, is my...question to you...."
"Well, I don't, I don't really think that the end can be assessed...uh as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like, it's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe you say the...if the universe is indeed infinite then how what does that mean? How far is is t...is all the way and then if it stops what's stoppin' it and what's behind what's stoppin' it, so what's the end, you know, is my...question to you...."
HEH: Joe Carter:
"Until I take the time to draw up a formal comments policy I will use my discretion to delete any comments I find objectionable and invite those who make such remarks to leave. Anyone who doesn’t like this approach is free to start their own blog and say whatever they like. Currently, joecarterisamoron.blogspot.com is still available so you’re more than welcome to post your thoughts there"
"Until I take the time to draw up a formal comments policy I will use my discretion to delete any comments I find objectionable and invite those who make such remarks to leave. Anyone who doesn’t like this approach is free to start their own blog and say whatever they like. Currently, joecarterisamoron.blogspot.com is still available so you’re more than welcome to post your thoughts there"
WELL: Bill Wallo responds to the earlier-in-the-week "is this what democracy looks like?" with the following:
"Anti-Climacus wonders whether stupid slogans are an indication of what democracy looks like. I don't know. But they're an indication of what a free society looks like - where people are free to spout off at the mouth any stupid thing they want, and I'm free to slap them down hard (in a verbal sense, anyway). Free speech isn't without consequence (i.e., it really isn't "free"), and if you want to be stupid you should be ready for what comes."
But I'm not entirely sure I find this to be true. Abortion activists might be a bad example (we don't, generally, want to impugn their motives), so I'll switch to one that works a little better: the KKK or one of those neo-Nazi groups. A lot of people will tell you that if neo-Nazis want to march through Skokie (or whatever), they should be free to do it, and the rest of us (sane) folk should be free to decry them for being the idiots they are. But I don't think anyone would shed a tear if there were no more racists or anti-semites, and I don't know that we'd be any less free for having a couple largely objectionable and widely discredited sets of opinions out of the public sphere. Certainly, there are a lot of people who think it's perfectly acceptable to engage in collective social action to shut out these opinions (see the googlebombers below), or else engage in some kind of collective education which puts these viewpoints on the defensive, if it even introduces them as concepts at all.
I guess my question is this: if you believe there are some opinions that no one should have, and you think that it's okay to act collectively to try and stop people from forming those opinions, and you think at least some restrictions on free speech are acceptable (laws against inciting a riot or something similar), why wouldn't, say, the government (as an agent that expresses the will of the people (at least in theory) at least some of the time) be able to enact laws to further along society's goals*?
*Not, of course, directly making it illegal to say something-or-other, just sort of indirectly signalling that some set of beliefs isn't cool.
"Anti-Climacus wonders whether stupid slogans are an indication of what democracy looks like. I don't know. But they're an indication of what a free society looks like - where people are free to spout off at the mouth any stupid thing they want, and I'm free to slap them down hard (in a verbal sense, anyway). Free speech isn't without consequence (i.e., it really isn't "free"), and if you want to be stupid you should be ready for what comes."
But I'm not entirely sure I find this to be true. Abortion activists might be a bad example (we don't, generally, want to impugn their motives), so I'll switch to one that works a little better: the KKK or one of those neo-Nazi groups. A lot of people will tell you that if neo-Nazis want to march through Skokie (or whatever), they should be free to do it, and the rest of us (sane) folk should be free to decry them for being the idiots they are. But I don't think anyone would shed a tear if there were no more racists or anti-semites, and I don't know that we'd be any less free for having a couple largely objectionable and widely discredited sets of opinions out of the public sphere. Certainly, there are a lot of people who think it's perfectly acceptable to engage in collective social action to shut out these opinions (see the googlebombers below), or else engage in some kind of collective education which puts these viewpoints on the defensive, if it even introduces them as concepts at all.
I guess my question is this: if you believe there are some opinions that no one should have, and you think that it's okay to act collectively to try and stop people from forming those opinions, and you think at least some restrictions on free speech are acceptable (laws against inciting a riot or something similar), why wouldn't, say, the government (as an agent that expresses the will of the people (at least in theory) at least some of the time) be able to enact laws to further along society's goals*?
*Not, of course, directly making it illegal to say something-or-other, just sort of indirectly signalling that some set of beliefs isn't cool.
WELL: Speaking of people whose opinions we wouldn't mind shutting out of political discourse, OxBlog offers the following:
"A VICTORY FOR ANTI-ANTI-SEMITES: A few weeks ago, Josh had pointed out that the first of 1.75 million entries to appear for a Google search on "Jew" was, in actuality, an anti-Semitic site. As a result, we and a number of our blogosphere friends began a Google-bomb to instead propel Wikipedia's entry for the word Jew to the top of the search records. And, if you'd like to Google yourself to see, we can now happily report that the Wikipedia entry stands now proudly at the top!
An attempt by the anti-Semitic site's owners to vandalise the Wikipedia article notwithstanding, what's most noteworthy of mention is that the preponderant portion of the bloggers taking part in removing the vitriolic site from the top of the search results weren't even Jewish at all. Which reflects awfully well, I think, on the great-spiritedness of both the greatest portion of our society and of the blogosphere."
"A VICTORY FOR ANTI-ANTI-SEMITES: A few weeks ago, Josh had pointed out that the first of 1.75 million entries to appear for a Google search on "Jew" was, in actuality, an anti-Semitic site. As a result, we and a number of our blogosphere friends began a Google-bomb to instead propel Wikipedia's entry for the word Jew to the top of the search records. And, if you'd like to Google yourself to see, we can now happily report that the Wikipedia entry stands now proudly at the top!
An attempt by the anti-Semitic site's owners to vandalise the Wikipedia article notwithstanding, what's most noteworthy of mention is that the preponderant portion of the bloggers taking part in removing the vitriolic site from the top of the search results weren't even Jewish at all. Which reflects awfully well, I think, on the great-spiritedness of both the greatest portion of our society and of the blogosphere."
THOUGHTS ON THE BELOW: It amazes me, generally speaking, when talking about politics the extent to which the benefit of the doubt is not given. Perhaps the only reason that it surprises me is that I went, in one year, from reading The Nation religiously to reading NRO: I'm pretty clear on the fact that you can make a good argument that the costs of environmental clean-up should fall on the companies who created the problem in the first place, even if it's many decades after the fact. I'm also pretty clear that there's a strong argument to be made that, say, affirmative action is ultimately insulting and counterproductive. I believe in being agnostic towards sources in political debate: a good argument is a good argument, and anyone can make one.
One of the fastest ways to poison any political debate is to start questioning the underlying motivations of people you're arguing with. Everyone's motivations (or at least a broad enough swath of them for anyone's purposes) are pretty much the same: everyone wants to see the country be stronger and better in the future: people just disagree about how to get there. Abortion is no different than fiscal policy or the war in Iraq. Just as good writing can contain a complex thought but is never itself complex, good political argument can go viciously after the consequences of someone's idea, but never against their motivation for suggesting it*.
*A tricky case, of course, because there are at least some people whose motivations we actually do want to impugn, but we ought to extend them the benefit of the doubt, say, seventy times seven times before we cut them out of the debate entirely.
One of the fastest ways to poison any political debate is to start questioning the underlying motivations of people you're arguing with. Everyone's motivations (or at least a broad enough swath of them for anyone's purposes) are pretty much the same: everyone wants to see the country be stronger and better in the future: people just disagree about how to get there. Abortion is no different than fiscal policy or the war in Iraq. Just as good writing can contain a complex thought but is never itself complex, good political argument can go viciously after the consequences of someone's idea, but never against their motivation for suggesting it*.
*A tricky case, of course, because there are at least some people whose motivations we actually do want to impugn, but we ought to extend them the benefit of the doubt, say, seventy times seven times before we cut them out of the debate entirely.
LINK: Sara Butler has a quite good post on civility in politics, always a favorite topic of mine:
"I think Ampersand is right when he said in the comments below that "the most basic element of civil debate is being willing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt." But maybe you can understand my skepticism about how committed most pro-choicers are to civil debate when I have to first prove I'm not a murdering fanatic, when I'm refered to as "evil" in the casual conversations of our campus chapter of the Feminist Majority, when my professor expresses first disbelief and then shock and horror upon discovering I'm a pro-life. I can count on about two fingers the number of feminists who have ever given me the benefit of the doubt.
I know y'all pro-choicers have the exact same kind of stories. But, frankly, at the moment, I don't care. I don't care because at the end of the day, there's only one person whose behavior I can control, and that's me, and I know none of the stories you have are because of me.
There comes a point when I'm not willing to excuse the behavior towards me of people who disagree with me just because someone who does agree with me was mean to them. And it's nice that some of y'all feel bad that that's happened and I hope you can convince more people to feel bad about it, but that doesn't make me want to excuse it either. If we wait for everyone on both sides to stop being jerks before we start giving each other the benefit of the doubt, it's never gonna happen.
I'm part of a movement and therefore have a responsibility to help shape that movment. Believe me, I get it. But I'm also an individual who deserves to be judged by my own behavior, not by what someone else who agrees with me about some aspect of a particular issue does or says. I'm sick of the lame excuses people offer for not doing that. I'm sick of all my apologizing for other people never being enough. And I'm sick of giving people the benefit of the doubt only to have them spit in my face.
I will go on giving people the benefit of the doubt. But if you take that opportunity and just treat me like the enemy, don't surpise when I say forget civil debate and fight back."
"I think Ampersand is right when he said in the comments below that "the most basic element of civil debate is being willing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt." But maybe you can understand my skepticism about how committed most pro-choicers are to civil debate when I have to first prove I'm not a murdering fanatic, when I'm refered to as "evil" in the casual conversations of our campus chapter of the Feminist Majority, when my professor expresses first disbelief and then shock and horror upon discovering I'm a pro-life. I can count on about two fingers the number of feminists who have ever given me the benefit of the doubt.
I know y'all pro-choicers have the exact same kind of stories. But, frankly, at the moment, I don't care. I don't care because at the end of the day, there's only one person whose behavior I can control, and that's me, and I know none of the stories you have are because of me.
There comes a point when I'm not willing to excuse the behavior towards me of people who disagree with me just because someone who does agree with me was mean to them. And it's nice that some of y'all feel bad that that's happened and I hope you can convince more people to feel bad about it, but that doesn't make me want to excuse it either. If we wait for everyone on both sides to stop being jerks before we start giving each other the benefit of the doubt, it's never gonna happen.
I'm part of a movement and therefore have a responsibility to help shape that movment. Believe me, I get it. But I'm also an individual who deserves to be judged by my own behavior, not by what someone else who agrees with me about some aspect of a particular issue does or says. I'm sick of the lame excuses people offer for not doing that. I'm sick of all my apologizing for other people never being enough. And I'm sick of giving people the benefit of the doubt only to have them spit in my face.
I will go on giving people the benefit of the doubt. But if you take that opportunity and just treat me like the enemy, don't surpise when I say forget civil debate and fight back."
QUOTE: T-Muffle celebrates the rites of spring:
"Cynical, soulless bastards that we are, we still find ourselves amazed every year when we emerge from our apartment, groggy and hungover, to the first real day of spring. The bright sunlight, the smell in the air of freshness and renewal (soon to be replaced by the summer aroma of urine, sure, but we’re not going to worry about that right now), the impossible promises the season seems to make; suddenly, we’re sixteen again, when everything seemed within reach. We can’t help it: We’re in a really good mood."
"Cynical, soulless bastards that we are, we still find ourselves amazed every year when we emerge from our apartment, groggy and hungover, to the first real day of spring. The bright sunlight, the smell in the air of freshness and renewal (soon to be replaced by the summer aroma of urine, sure, but we’re not going to worry about that right now), the impossible promises the season seems to make; suddenly, we’re sixteen again, when everything seemed within reach. We can’t help it: We’re in a really good mood."
28.4.04
WELL: So I just wrote something about this in my model of choosing classes by U of M's hierarchical system, and I'm interested if it's widely true: I said that path dependence and a limited amount of time dictates that you're likely to major in the first department you take two classes in. It's true for me (for both my departments, no less), I'm wondering if it's true for others, as well.
27.4.04
WELL: Regular blogging will resume tomorrow, but until then, some things of narrower interest:
*A sure sign that I'm mellowing with age: I just listened to a Beatles song and didn't instantly hate it (granted, the song was "Rain," but still...). Now washing the brain out with David Bowie's "Subterraneans" in the hope of restoring my hipness.
*Also, if you liked the Rolling Stones' "Moonlight Mile," you might like some of the following:
"Blue Turns to Grey" -December's Children
"No Expectations" -Beggars Banquet
"Memory Motel" -(try and find the No Security live version, which is a little shorter)
"Loving Cup," "Torn and Frayed," "Sweet Virginia" and "Shine a Light"-Exile on Main Steet
If you can at all stand Keith Richards' voice: "Theif in the Night," "Before They Make Me Run," "You Got the Silver"
"Dead Flowers," "I Got the Blues" (still the best approximation of Otis Redding by any white men ever), "Sway" -Sticky Fingers
and any of their approximations of old R&B standards: "That's How Strong My Love Is," "Mercy Mercy," "It's All Over Now," etc.
and for those of you who think of them as primarily crazy hedonists, "I Just Want to See His Face," which suggests someone's got a decent idea of what Christianity is like (my money's on Keith).
*A sure sign that I'm mellowing with age: I just listened to a Beatles song and didn't instantly hate it (granted, the song was "Rain," but still...). Now washing the brain out with David Bowie's "Subterraneans" in the hope of restoring my hipness.
*Also, if you liked the Rolling Stones' "Moonlight Mile," you might like some of the following:
"Blue Turns to Grey" -December's Children
"No Expectations" -Beggars Banquet
"Memory Motel" -(try and find the No Security live version, which is a little shorter)
"Loving Cup," "Torn and Frayed," "Sweet Virginia" and "Shine a Light"-Exile on Main Steet
If you can at all stand Keith Richards' voice: "Theif in the Night," "Before They Make Me Run," "You Got the Silver"
"Dead Flowers," "I Got the Blues" (still the best approximation of Otis Redding by any white men ever), "Sway" -Sticky Fingers
and any of their approximations of old R&B standards: "That's How Strong My Love Is," "Mercy Mercy," "It's All Over Now," etc.
and for those of you who think of them as primarily crazy hedonists, "I Just Want to See His Face," which suggests someone's got a decent idea of what Christianity is like (my money's on Keith).
Republican pyramid scheme. This has been buzzing around my office. It's only taken them 50 years or so, but the Republicans have finally figured out that getting people out on the ground to talk to people actually helps win their vote.
-OGIW
-OGIW
QUOTE: Norm on journalistic anti-Americanism:
"Even-handed, don't you see? Those who take, and threaten to kill, or indeed sometimes do kill, hostages are downright imprudent; they make it harder for Western journalists to damn the US occupation, which the hostage-takers are opposing. No thought that in what the latter do there might be any issue of criminality, or even anything to damn: such as... well, hostage-taking; or obstructing the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure. Readers with long memories will be able to recall a time when the fact that this wasn't happening fast enough was the fault of the Coalition and loudly trumpeted for being so. Some of you may also be able to recall Jonathan Steele's reaction to the lynchings in Falluja, earlier on in the sequence of events now unfolding there."
"Even-handed, don't you see? Those who take, and threaten to kill, or indeed sometimes do kill, hostages are downright imprudent; they make it harder for Western journalists to damn the US occupation, which the hostage-takers are opposing. No thought that in what the latter do there might be any issue of criminality, or even anything to damn: such as... well, hostage-taking; or obstructing the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure. Readers with long memories will be able to recall a time when the fact that this wasn't happening fast enough was the fault of the Coalition and loudly trumpeted for being so. Some of you may also be able to recall Jonathan Steele's reaction to the lynchings in Falluja, earlier on in the sequence of events now unfolding there."
26.4.04
In fact it IS what democracy looks like. I actually didn't see many of those type of signs. There were a few raunchy plays on "Bush" but that was about it. This kind of thing seems rather equivalent to pro-lifers waving signs with aborted fetuses on them - tasteless but within the bounds of free speech.
-OGIW
Nick's note: one more reason not to like free speech...
-OGIW
Nick's note: one more reason not to like free speech...
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE? Sara Butler notes some of the more, um, colorful signage at Sunday's abortion march:
"They, for example, used placards to convey the lament that Barbara Bush hadn't killed her son in the womb. "If Only Barbara Bush Had Choice," read one sign. "Barbara Chose Poorly," read another. Marchers were also disappointed that the Pope's mother hadn't killed him in the womb. "The Pope's Mother Had No Choice," said a sign."
It's good to know that deep, meaningful politics are still alive and well in this country, and knee-jerk slogan-happy politics are so far outside the political mainstream. My own views on the abortion question aside, the idea that people find this to be an acceptable way to advocate their politics suggests to me that there's something deeply off.
"They, for example, used placards to convey the lament that Barbara Bush hadn't killed her son in the womb. "If Only Barbara Bush Had Choice," read one sign. "Barbara Chose Poorly," read another. Marchers were also disappointed that the Pope's mother hadn't killed him in the womb. "The Pope's Mother Had No Choice," said a sign."
It's good to know that deep, meaningful politics are still alive and well in this country, and knee-jerk slogan-happy politics are so far outside the political mainstream. My own views on the abortion question aside, the idea that people find this to be an acceptable way to advocate their politics suggests to me that there's something deeply off.
WELL: Sara asks for thoughts on this post. I sort of object to this:
"The state's interest in marriage is in the quality and stability of the environment in which children are raised."
I might say it's something more like that the state's interest is in maintaining the quality and stability of potential environments for children, but mostly I object to the implicit assumption about the state, society, and how laws are made. It's true (maybe) that some abstract commanding entity ought to have its power to act in people's lives limited. It seems much less clear to me that this should be the case when it's society that's directing the state to make or not make certain laws regarding other people's behavior...it seems like there's potential to the idea of casting a wider authoritative net if you consider laws to be merely one (generally effective) means of holding to a certain set of norms.
"The state's interest in marriage is in the quality and stability of the environment in which children are raised."
I might say it's something more like that the state's interest is in maintaining the quality and stability of potential environments for children, but mostly I object to the implicit assumption about the state, society, and how laws are made. It's true (maybe) that some abstract commanding entity ought to have its power to act in people's lives limited. It seems much less clear to me that this should be the case when it's society that's directing the state to make or not make certain laws regarding other people's behavior...it seems like there's potential to the idea of casting a wider authoritative net if you consider laws to be merely one (generally effective) means of holding to a certain set of norms.
25.4.04
24.4.04
LINK: Walloworld has an interesting post on the joogling campaign, including the following:
"Do I like this? I guess not really. I don't like anti-Semitism, but I also don't like the idea that a company whose stated goal is to simply map the Internet and provide search results based upon the stated inquiry is now picking and choosing content. That isn't direct governmental censorship, but it makes me wonder what other content Google might start restricting simply because people don't like that it shows up in a list of search results. Now, even if I just wanted to find anti-Semitic stuff purely for research purposes, I apparently couldn't run a search and find Jew Watch's site, even though it is clearly quite relevant."
Now, this will surprise probably no one, but I actually don't have a lot of problems with anti-semites being run out of the conversation (and the same goes for holders of other not-cool opinions), because I think it's more of a problem that everyone in civil society plays by the same set of rules than that people feel comfortable to say whatever it is they think, no matter how ridiculous.
Of course, one might easily object that in societies which are fundamentally off in the moral sense (slave-holding societies, Nazi Germany, etc etc) would be crushing the opinions of those who were actually in the right, morally speaking. I don't really find this to be problematic because you might believe, first of all, that common moral norms are available to everyone via whatever their nature may be, and second, that if someone fails to educate themselves as to the correct moral norms (objectively speaking), well, that's just one more black mark against them. But doesn't that mean that you're saying that people can and do get away with being morally perverted, if you will, and that's just sort of the way things are? Yes, indeed. I'm not saying it's good, mind you, but there are rewards to be meted out other than those on earth...
"Do I like this? I guess not really. I don't like anti-Semitism, but I also don't like the idea that a company whose stated goal is to simply map the Internet and provide search results based upon the stated inquiry is now picking and choosing content. That isn't direct governmental censorship, but it makes me wonder what other content Google might start restricting simply because people don't like that it shows up in a list of search results. Now, even if I just wanted to find anti-Semitic stuff purely for research purposes, I apparently couldn't run a search and find Jew Watch's site, even though it is clearly quite relevant."
Now, this will surprise probably no one, but I actually don't have a lot of problems with anti-semites being run out of the conversation (and the same goes for holders of other not-cool opinions), because I think it's more of a problem that everyone in civil society plays by the same set of rules than that people feel comfortable to say whatever it is they think, no matter how ridiculous.
Of course, one might easily object that in societies which are fundamentally off in the moral sense (slave-holding societies, Nazi Germany, etc etc) would be crushing the opinions of those who were actually in the right, morally speaking. I don't really find this to be problematic because you might believe, first of all, that common moral norms are available to everyone via whatever their nature may be, and second, that if someone fails to educate themselves as to the correct moral norms (objectively speaking), well, that's just one more black mark against them. But doesn't that mean that you're saying that people can and do get away with being morally perverted, if you will, and that's just sort of the way things are? Yes, indeed. I'm not saying it's good, mind you, but there are rewards to be meted out other than those on earth...
RANDOM MUSIC-RELATED THOUGHTS:
*OK Computer? Still good. Terrible shame everything they followed it up with was crap.
*A lot is made of the influence of Jeff Buckley on Radiohead, especially in disucssions of "Fake Plastic Trees." But nowhere is the influence more evident than in the bridge of "Climbing Up the Walls," which out-and-out steals the break from "So Real," except that Buckley did it all without much in the way of studio trickery, and, thus, did it better.
*The recent trend in mashups has been nothing but good for the world (e.g. "No Fun/Push It"). Someone ought to give Soulwax an award.
*The Smiths? Can't really listen to "How Soon Is Now?" anymore (my life's not that pathetic), but "The Boy With the Thorn In His Side" and "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out" have, if anything, gotten better with age.
*OK Computer? Still good. Terrible shame everything they followed it up with was crap.
*A lot is made of the influence of Jeff Buckley on Radiohead, especially in disucssions of "Fake Plastic Trees." But nowhere is the influence more evident than in the bridge of "Climbing Up the Walls," which out-and-out steals the break from "So Real," except that Buckley did it all without much in the way of studio trickery, and, thus, did it better.
*The recent trend in mashups has been nothing but good for the world (e.g. "No Fun/Push It"). Someone ought to give Soulwax an award.
*The Smiths? Can't really listen to "How Soon Is Now?" anymore (my life's not that pathetic), but "The Boy With the Thorn In His Side" and "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out" have, if anything, gotten better with age.
23.4.04
HEH: from my paper on the two-aspect theory of compatibilism:
"[Philosopher David] Velleman says that, supposing one has [a book which tells every action one is going to undertake], one would never feel the need to consult it before making the decision about what to have for lunch (though, if I were perhaps dithering as usual about what to have, being able to peek in on what I was going to have anyway might save everyone a great deal of time)."
"[Philosopher David] Velleman says that, supposing one has [a book which tells every action one is going to undertake], one would never feel the need to consult it before making the decision about what to have for lunch (though, if I were perhaps dithering as usual about what to have, being able to peek in on what I was going to have anyway might save everyone a great deal of time)."
21.4.04
WELL: Who would've thought that classes ending would mean I'd have more work to do?
Back after round one of paper insanity ends on Friday. If you have thoughts on Platonic critiques of Aristotlean definitions of citizenship, or the two-aspect theory of compatibilism, feel free to leave them in the comments.
Back after round one of paper insanity ends on Friday. If you have thoughts on Platonic critiques of Aristotlean definitions of citizenship, or the two-aspect theory of compatibilism, feel free to leave them in the comments.
20.4.04
HEH: From the Onion:
Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department
CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.
Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department
CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.
WELL: Our Girl has some thoughts immediately below on the Bobby Jindal situation. We can disagree (presumably because we can't ever know) about whether it was the case here, but there's certainly been a case of something like this in the past. The following conditions apply:
1. You have a candidate who doesn't support some particular bias against others
2. The candidate has some internal polling which suggests that they're getting appreciable support from people who have the above bias
3. The candidate announces opposition to said bias
4. The candidate nevertheless plans their campaign strategy counting on receiving votes from the bias-holders
Now, you might believe that as a practical matter this is unproblematic because the candidate can't help who they get support from, and might act to put in place policies that would combat said bias. You can then tweak the size of the group to be sufficiently big enough to be problematic (imagine it's half the support the winning candidate receives, instead of just enough to put them over the edge). The candidate is essentially saying that the group isn't good enough to receive political respect, but good enough for their votes to be respected. I'm not suggesting that politics is not worth doing as a result, but there's something inherently humbling in the realization you're morally compromised.
Incidentally, the 'what if you only won because racists didn't vote at all, and they were going to vote for the other guy' defense doesn't work, because racists (or their analogues) not voting is never problematic.
Then again, I've always had sympathy for what Riker called the Madisonian view of elections.
1. You have a candidate who doesn't support some particular bias against others
2. The candidate has some internal polling which suggests that they're getting appreciable support from people who have the above bias
3. The candidate announces opposition to said bias
4. The candidate nevertheless plans their campaign strategy counting on receiving votes from the bias-holders
Now, you might believe that as a practical matter this is unproblematic because the candidate can't help who they get support from, and might act to put in place policies that would combat said bias. You can then tweak the size of the group to be sufficiently big enough to be problematic (imagine it's half the support the winning candidate receives, instead of just enough to put them over the edge). The candidate is essentially saying that the group isn't good enough to receive political respect, but good enough for their votes to be respected. I'm not suggesting that politics is not worth doing as a result, but there's something inherently humbling in the realization you're morally compromised.
Incidentally, the 'what if you only won because racists didn't vote at all, and they were going to vote for the other guy' defense doesn't work, because racists (or their analogues) not voting is never problematic.
Then again, I've always had sympathy for what Riker called the Madisonian view of elections.
Note: To those who are still waiting on the edge of their seat for me to start posting stuff, don't fret, it's coming. I'm getting slammed at work right now and will hopefully have more time to think later in the week.
I also note that Nick has been on a posting tear for the past few days. Don't you have to study or something?
-OGIW
I also note that Nick has been on a posting tear for the past few days. Don't you have to study or something?
-OGIW
In response to the Bobby Jindal post, yes I am still willing to say that whose votes you win with doesn't really matter. There's no indication (at least in the linked article) that the Democratic candidate did anything to court this "Bubba vote." What was he supposed to do, go out there and tell the rednecks not to vote for him because it would violate his principles? If they're dumb enough to vote for him despite the fact that he's a Democrat and (hopefully) opposed to their racist beliefs then that's their problem, not his.
-OGIW
-OGIW
WELL: I'm going to have to disagree a little with Jollyblogger on the subject of whether it's okay to leave the church, mostly because I did it for about four years, and found the experience to be largely beneficial. A couple exceptions that should probably be noted: this was end-of-high school, beginning-of-college, and I was coming out of an extremely evangelical environment (very anti-intellectual, sad to say, so I was always regarded a bit suspiciously for reading the Great Books, etc) which actually hadn't put much of an emphasis on dogma, rather more on participation. I also didn't, I think, leave the church in one of the more important senses: I spent more time learning about theology during the period when I was on my own than at any other time (this is when I read most of my Luther, Calvin, Lewis and Kierkegaard). Largely, I think it was the period when I made that switch from doing the things a Christian is supposed to do because they're supposed to do them to doing them because I totally passionately wanted to do them; I'm not sure that would've happened if I'd stayed active in the intervening years.
Then again, there's the story that C.S. Lewis tells (in God in the Dock, I think, though I might be wrong) about how when he first became a Christian, he thought it was more or less like continuing in his academic work, that you could do it without ever having to go to church. But there's something really powerful about being surrounded by other believers that you can't have Christian faith without. So I suppose the question reduces to whether you ought to be in church anyway even if you can't feel that: now, I'd say yes, but I'm aware there was a time I would've said no, and I think I'm a better Christian for having had that time.
Comments, critiques, etc appreciated.
Then again, there's the story that C.S. Lewis tells (in God in the Dock, I think, though I might be wrong) about how when he first became a Christian, he thought it was more or less like continuing in his academic work, that you could do it without ever having to go to church. But there's something really powerful about being surrounded by other believers that you can't have Christian faith without. So I suppose the question reduces to whether you ought to be in church anyway even if you can't feel that: now, I'd say yes, but I'm aware there was a time I would've said no, and I think I'm a better Christian for having had that time.
Comments, critiques, etc appreciated.
LINK: The Weekly Standard has a good article on research showing that there's a strong correlation between the votes of white racists and the people who voted against Bobby Jindal. Still willing to say it doesn't make a difference whose votes you win with, OGIW?
QUOTE: Paul Wolfowitz:
"That's all important, but it's the past. The future is creating a country in the heart of the Arab world that has an independent judiciary, that respects minority rights, that respects the rights of women, that observes democratic practices.
"That's going to have an influence. It's not a domino effect -- that's an absurd comparison. But it will have a broad influence in the Middle East in the way I believe Japan had a great influence on East Asia, and subsequently Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong had a broad influence on China. It's very important to demonstrate to the Arabs that given the right circumstances, they can achieve what the rest of us have done."
One of the interesting things that occurred to me last night is that I remember arguing, when all the Iraq 'trouble' started last year, that expecting things to right themselves in 6 months, or a year, or five years, was hopelessly optimistic: you can't make any very good judgments on where things are going based on where they are at any given moment. My favored comparison at the time was that it took, after the end of the Revolutionary War, about 40 years for the U.S. to have something resembling full territorial sovereignty, and even that was incomplete.
So it strikes me that what's going on right now is probably the equivalent of Shay's Rebellion: it makes it clear that there are some big outstanding problems, and institutions are needed that can cope with those. But just as some crazy farmers in Western Massachusetts didn't doom the US, neither do the various crazies in Iraq doom them.
"That's all important, but it's the past. The future is creating a country in the heart of the Arab world that has an independent judiciary, that respects minority rights, that respects the rights of women, that observes democratic practices.
"That's going to have an influence. It's not a domino effect -- that's an absurd comparison. But it will have a broad influence in the Middle East in the way I believe Japan had a great influence on East Asia, and subsequently Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong had a broad influence on China. It's very important to demonstrate to the Arabs that given the right circumstances, they can achieve what the rest of us have done."
One of the interesting things that occurred to me last night is that I remember arguing, when all the Iraq 'trouble' started last year, that expecting things to right themselves in 6 months, or a year, or five years, was hopelessly optimistic: you can't make any very good judgments on where things are going based on where they are at any given moment. My favored comparison at the time was that it took, after the end of the Revolutionary War, about 40 years for the U.S. to have something resembling full territorial sovereignty, and even that was incomplete.
So it strikes me that what's going on right now is probably the equivalent of Shay's Rebellion: it makes it clear that there are some big outstanding problems, and institutions are needed that can cope with those. But just as some crazy farmers in Western Massachusetts didn't doom the US, neither do the various crazies in Iraq doom them.
LINK: watch as I try to bait OGIW into posting something. David Brooks has some thoughts on Bush's environmental record, and concludes that it's not all bad:
"The most ambitious Bush proposal is over the nature of environmental regulation itself. Bush inherited a command-and-control regulatory regime called new-source review, which has metastasized into a regulatory behemoth. Bureaucrats try to issue rules site by site. Industries have a perverse incentive to rely on older high-pollution plants. The review process is opaque, expensive and riddled with litigation.
The administration is trying to supersede it with a cap-and-trade system, in which the government would set caps on overall emissions, allow companies flexibility on how to meet them and give firms the chance to buy and sell emissions credits. This general approach was recently embraced by a comprehensive study by the National Research Council. It builds on a phenomenally successful cap-and-trade provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act, which controls sulfur dioxide emissions at 25 percent of the cost of the old regulatory system.
Nonetheless, for two years Jim Jeffords and a Democratic-led coalition have blocked the Bush initiative. Many Democrats have in the past backed cap-and-trade reforms, but they don't want to allow Bush a victory. This has had several bad effects. The administration has tried to enact the reforms by administrative fiat, which means litigation and delay. More important, it means that there is no discussion or compromise on some remaining points of dispute.
How high should the caps be? Should we reduce emissions by 70 percent, as Bush wants, or by 90 percent? Would the benefits of that higher standard justify the costs? What about mercury? There are proposals to supplement the cap-and-trade approach with local measures to handle hot spots with high mercury concentrations. These languish during the deadlock. Finally, if utilities were given an incentive to switch to natural gas, would that decimate our coal industry?"
"The most ambitious Bush proposal is over the nature of environmental regulation itself. Bush inherited a command-and-control regulatory regime called new-source review, which has metastasized into a regulatory behemoth. Bureaucrats try to issue rules site by site. Industries have a perverse incentive to rely on older high-pollution plants. The review process is opaque, expensive and riddled with litigation.
The administration is trying to supersede it with a cap-and-trade system, in which the government would set caps on overall emissions, allow companies flexibility on how to meet them and give firms the chance to buy and sell emissions credits. This general approach was recently embraced by a comprehensive study by the National Research Council. It builds on a phenomenally successful cap-and-trade provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act, which controls sulfur dioxide emissions at 25 percent of the cost of the old regulatory system.
Nonetheless, for two years Jim Jeffords and a Democratic-led coalition have blocked the Bush initiative. Many Democrats have in the past backed cap-and-trade reforms, but they don't want to allow Bush a victory. This has had several bad effects. The administration has tried to enact the reforms by administrative fiat, which means litigation and delay. More important, it means that there is no discussion or compromise on some remaining points of dispute.
How high should the caps be? Should we reduce emissions by 70 percent, as Bush wants, or by 90 percent? Would the benefits of that higher standard justify the costs? What about mercury? There are proposals to supplement the cap-and-trade approach with local measures to handle hot spots with high mercury concentrations. These languish during the deadlock. Finally, if utilities were given an incentive to switch to natural gas, would that decimate our coal industry?"
LINK: Do you think there's some kind of selection bias between people who have blogs and people who take internet quizzes? I do.
19.4.04
IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EARTH-SHAKING IMPORTANCE: OGIW and I have been having an argument: is this man attractive?
WELL: So Andreas' lecture today was on J.S. Mill's On Liberty, #2 on my list of political theory books I'd like to make disappear (behind only Democracy in America), and he covered at some length Mill's theory of why freedom to dissent was crucial. Our big danger within modern democratic societies is the potentially coercive effects of majoritarian opinion (a silly notion on its own, if you at all take seriously individuals as moral agents). Mill talks about three different scenarios, all of which are supposed to show us that having free, unfettered debate is better than letting majorities dictate acceptable opinion:
1. the majority is wrong and some minority is right--only through dialogue with the minority can the majority reach the right opinion.
2. The majority is partially right, and some minority is partially right--through dialogue with each other, they can all come to have the right view.
3. the majority is right and the minority is wrong--obviously, this would be a paradigmatic case of dialogue being counterproductive, so Mill defends it here for two reasons: so the majority doesn't seem insecure, and so the majority doesn't seem dogmatic.
Obviously, my first question for Andreas was whether or not the majority could be right, be in dialogue with a wrong minority, and come out of that process with the wrong belief (through rhetorical strength of the minority, or something similar). Answer: no, because people will recognize superior reasons for one particular belief. You can think this is wrong on several levels: either it's hopelessly naive, in that it thinks that people with bad beliefs can never sway those with good ones; you can think it's descriptively wrong, in that it assumes people's reasons for coming to their beliefs are essentially rationalistic (I, for one, don't buy into this); or you might find it odd that people can work their way to having wrong beliefs (as some people must) through, presumably, rationalistic processes, but not be convinced into having wrong beliefs (which begs the question about where wrong beliefs come from in the first place).
And then again, you might find it odd that Mill's system presupposes the very centrifugal force he finds so repellent in previous political theory: it's bad that the majority uses its views to block out competitors, but everyone, according to Mill, is just waiting to have someone who has the right arguments come along and change their minds: everyone ends up in the 'right' camp in that case, as much as Rousseau (or someone similar) thinks they could be there as things are.
1. the majority is wrong and some minority is right--only through dialogue with the minority can the majority reach the right opinion.
2. The majority is partially right, and some minority is partially right--through dialogue with each other, they can all come to have the right view.
3. the majority is right and the minority is wrong--obviously, this would be a paradigmatic case of dialogue being counterproductive, so Mill defends it here for two reasons: so the majority doesn't seem insecure, and so the majority doesn't seem dogmatic.
Obviously, my first question for Andreas was whether or not the majority could be right, be in dialogue with a wrong minority, and come out of that process with the wrong belief (through rhetorical strength of the minority, or something similar). Answer: no, because people will recognize superior reasons for one particular belief. You can think this is wrong on several levels: either it's hopelessly naive, in that it thinks that people with bad beliefs can never sway those with good ones; you can think it's descriptively wrong, in that it assumes people's reasons for coming to their beliefs are essentially rationalistic (I, for one, don't buy into this); or you might find it odd that people can work their way to having wrong beliefs (as some people must) through, presumably, rationalistic processes, but not be convinced into having wrong beliefs (which begs the question about where wrong beliefs come from in the first place).
And then again, you might find it odd that Mill's system presupposes the very centrifugal force he finds so repellent in previous political theory: it's bad that the majority uses its views to block out competitors, but everyone, according to Mill, is just waiting to have someone who has the right arguments come along and change their minds: everyone ends up in the 'right' camp in that case, as much as Rousseau (or someone similar) thinks they could be there as things are.
LINK: The Hitch writes on his second thoughts about Iraq, which are pretty much the same as mine: we should've done this ten years ago.
LINK: Slate has a good review of the Jerry Seinfeld-Superman commercial thing, which, if you haven't already seen it, is pretty darn good.
The singalong is especially good.
The singalong is especially good.
LINK: I wonder if Our Girl has thoughts on this, what with her dating a rabid Republican:
"When my wife and I were first dating, our politics were quite different (although she did at least hear me out on my erstwhile allegiance to the ACLU, a sentiment which has subsequently waned considerably). The point is that it was those discussions - which often lasted for several hours - which deepened our interest in one another. Setting certain things "off limits" in a relationship seems somewhat odd; you're taking stuff off the table before dinner's over. It's one thing to establish ground rules about conversations, or to be respectful of a difference of opinion, but to say "We don't talk about this?" Sounds decidedly unhealthy."
"When my wife and I were first dating, our politics were quite different (although she did at least hear me out on my erstwhile allegiance to the ACLU, a sentiment which has subsequently waned considerably). The point is that it was those discussions - which often lasted for several hours - which deepened our interest in one another. Setting certain things "off limits" in a relationship seems somewhat odd; you're taking stuff off the table before dinner's over. It's one thing to establish ground rules about conversations, or to be respectful of a difference of opinion, but to say "We don't talk about this?" Sounds decidedly unhealthy."
QUOTE: Ted Barlow has a good post on his iPod, which includes the following sentiment, with which I wholly concur:
"If there’s a heaven for songs, “Can’t Get Next to You” will be there."
"If there’s a heaven for songs, “Can’t Get Next to You” will be there."
LINK: OGIW and I have been discussing smash-ups a lot lately, and here's what promises to be a good (though non-musical) one: TNR v. NRO.
HEH: Duke is eliminating all their 8:00 a.m. classes. Lucky me.
In other Duke-related news, the list of who's in the PhD class for next year got sent to me today, and out of our 12, at least four are theory students (though I didn't recognize more than a few of the names, which is worrisome), which means, unlike the past several years, we're actually going to outnumber at least one of the subfields, and possibly all of them. Go theory!
Also, some thoughts on why J.S. Mill's theory of freedom doesn't work after class, etc this evening.
In other Duke-related news, the list of who's in the PhD class for next year got sent to me today, and out of our 12, at least four are theory students (though I didn't recognize more than a few of the names, which is worrisome), which means, unlike the past several years, we're actually going to outnumber at least one of the subfields, and possibly all of them. Go theory!
Also, some thoughts on why J.S. Mill's theory of freedom doesn't work after class, etc this evening.
QUOTES OF THE DAY: From Scott Page's class on the modeling of culture:
"This is short and brief, but makes absolutely no sense"
-SP on John Dewey's definition of culture
and then there's Lionel Trilling's, which has a certain something:
"When we look at a people in the degree of abstraction which the idea of culture implies, we cannot but be touched and impressed by what we see, we cannot help being awed by something mysterious at work, some creative power which seems to transcend any particular act or habit or quality that may be observed. To make a coherent life, to confront the terrors of the outer and the inner world, to establish the ritual and art, the pieties and duties which make possible the life of the group and the individual--these are culture, and to contemplate these various enterprises which constitute a culture is inevitably moving.
"This is short and brief, but makes absolutely no sense"
-SP on John Dewey's definition of culture
and then there's Lionel Trilling's, which has a certain something:
"When we look at a people in the degree of abstraction which the idea of culture implies, we cannot but be touched and impressed by what we see, we cannot help being awed by something mysterious at work, some creative power which seems to transcend any particular act or habit or quality that may be observed. To make a coherent life, to confront the terrors of the outer and the inner world, to establish the ritual and art, the pieties and duties which make possible the life of the group and the individual--these are culture, and to contemplate these various enterprises which constitute a culture is inevitably moving.
18.4.04
LINK: David Wayne has a quite good post on what literalism with respect to Biblical interpretation actually means.
QUOTE: Andrew Sullivan has clearly lost it:
"But with soaring deficits and a war to pay for, taxes are not an option — they're a necessity."
Granted, I'd agree with that position, but that's because I'm one of those tax-and-spend liberal types*. Sullivan's a conservative--shouldn't he know better?
*so allow me to split a linguistic hair here: 'tax and spend?' Well yeah. Spending without having any money is pretty irresponsible, and if you're collecting money from people, you might as well do something with it...
"But with soaring deficits and a war to pay for, taxes are not an option — they're a necessity."
Granted, I'd agree with that position, but that's because I'm one of those tax-and-spend liberal types*. Sullivan's a conservative--shouldn't he know better?
*so allow me to split a linguistic hair here: 'tax and spend?' Well yeah. Spending without having any money is pretty irresponsible, and if you're collecting money from people, you might as well do something with it...
QUOTE: Dan Drezner:
"That said, I still side with Brooks over Yglesias -- provided the United States sees Iraq out to the end. If Bush -- or Bush's successor -- were to turn tail and withdraw from Baghdad without leaving a stable popular government in its wake, then I'm afraid Yglesias would be correct. From a humanitarian perspective, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. From a national security perspective, invading Iraq and then withdrawing in the face of insurgent attacks would be far worse than not invading in the first place.
And this point, I suspect, is what drives so many of Bush's mainstream opponents around the bend. It's one thing to have opposed the Iraq invasion -- that's a reasonable position to hold, and I said so at the time. However, responsible politicos recognize that it's irresponsible to advocate withdrawal after the invasion. The damage to the United States of pulling out in the midst of insugent violence would be severe. This is why Howard Dean, even when he was riding high in the polls, advocated sending more U.S. troops to Iraq."
"That said, I still side with Brooks over Yglesias -- provided the United States sees Iraq out to the end. If Bush -- or Bush's successor -- were to turn tail and withdraw from Baghdad without leaving a stable popular government in its wake, then I'm afraid Yglesias would be correct. From a humanitarian perspective, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. From a national security perspective, invading Iraq and then withdrawing in the face of insurgent attacks would be far worse than not invading in the first place.
And this point, I suspect, is what drives so many of Bush's mainstream opponents around the bend. It's one thing to have opposed the Iraq invasion -- that's a reasonable position to hold, and I said so at the time. However, responsible politicos recognize that it's irresponsible to advocate withdrawal after the invasion. The damage to the United States of pulling out in the midst of insugent violence would be severe. This is why Howard Dean, even when he was riding high in the polls, advocated sending more U.S. troops to Iraq."
LINK: Pej is asking for some help on Christian theology on the trinity and forgiveness of sins. Since more than a few theological smarties read here, I thought I'd try to direct some of them to leave their thoughts over there.
HEH: From ILM's sum up the videographies of various bands in one sentence:
"REM: Slowly but surely admitting we're not as different as we think we are"
"The Smiths: Oh, darling, if we must..."
"REM: Slowly but surely admitting we're not as different as we think we are"
"The Smiths: Oh, darling, if we must..."
don't you like when the winter's gone
and all of a sudden it starts getting warm?
trees and the grass start lookin' fresh
and the sun and the sky be lookin' their best
birds be singin', flowers be bloomin'
a lot of brand-new cars be zoomin'
fly girls lookin' the best they can be
and the guys be dookie-dookie down, you see
-Biz Markie, "Spring Again"
and all of a sudden it starts getting warm?
trees and the grass start lookin' fresh
and the sun and the sky be lookin' their best
birds be singin', flowers be bloomin'
a lot of brand-new cars be zoomin'
fly girls lookin' the best they can be
and the guys be dookie-dookie down, you see
-Biz Markie, "Spring Again"
LINK: Heidi Bond has a really good post on Take Back the Night marches that I encourage you all to read.
LINK: Oh, and Harry at Harry's Place has some more thoughts on whose dissent is actually being silenced:
"A large part of the left has crossed the line from scepticism, a quality necessary for any attempt to analyse the world, to a cynicism which negates the need to even undertake creative, critical thinking. The left has failed to break with the fossilised sectarian thinking of the last century and has merely reinvented it, stripping it of the messianic delusions of the vanguardists of the past and replacing it with an all-embracing cynicism which at its very core is nothing more than nihilism."
"A large part of the left has crossed the line from scepticism, a quality necessary for any attempt to analyse the world, to a cynicism which negates the need to even undertake creative, critical thinking. The left has failed to break with the fossilised sectarian thinking of the last century and has merely reinvented it, stripping it of the messianic delusions of the vanguardists of the past and replacing it with an all-embracing cynicism which at its very core is nothing more than nihilism."
QUOTE: Norman Geras gets himself quite worked up over the 'betrayal of dissent' argument floating out there. Me likey:
"Well, here's my little counter-exercise in the sociology of knowledge. It answers this question: how on earth could individuals belonging to a global movement of millions of people, and whose point of view had widespread representation in the world's media, being in some sectors of this almost suffocating - how could these individuals have seen themselves as 'surrounded' and their dissent as under pressure, under threat of being silenced? I wonder if what they're saying is a displacement of something else which they may have acutely felt: namely a painful discomfort at the substance of what the critics of their position kept pointing out - that if their view had prevailed it would have meant the survival of quite monstrous regimes of murder, torture and political and social oppression. If any of them did feel the force of this discomfort as surrounding and discouraging them, then that is in some measure to their credit. But it still ain't the silencing of dissent."
"Well, here's my little counter-exercise in the sociology of knowledge. It answers this question: how on earth could individuals belonging to a global movement of millions of people, and whose point of view had widespread representation in the world's media, being in some sectors of this almost suffocating - how could these individuals have seen themselves as 'surrounded' and their dissent as under pressure, under threat of being silenced? I wonder if what they're saying is a displacement of something else which they may have acutely felt: namely a painful discomfort at the substance of what the critics of their position kept pointing out - that if their view had prevailed it would have meant the survival of quite monstrous regimes of murder, torture and political and social oppression. If any of them did feel the force of this discomfort as surrounding and discouraging them, then that is in some measure to their credit. But it still ain't the silencing of dissent."
I'd just like to welcome myself to the Anti-Climacus family and give a big thanks to Nick for trusting me not to post ridiculous stuff to his blog. I'm sure I will have many more interesting things to say as time goes on, but right now I'm too busy being jealous of everyone who is at the Bang to think straight.
-ogiw
-ogiw
17.4.04
WELL: One last semi-serious thought before I go to the Bang! I've been working on a model of markets and democracy in Iraq (for Scott Page's class), and on the democracy end, I've pretty much begun with the idea of a federated democracy along the lines of the US: it would reassure, I think, on the local and regional levels, a great deal of stability for presumably obvious reasons. The big problem has been how that translates onto the national level, where you have powerful, motivated factions with radically different ideas of what should be going on. How on earth do you keep all the pieces together, when their motion naturally suggests they fall apart?
Then it came to me: gerrymandering. No, seriously. One of the nicer features of US electoral districts is that there's little rhyme or reason to how they're laid out: can anyone outline specifically what areas are in, say, Ann Arbor's US House area and not in that of the adjoining districts (like, on the street level, where the lines are)?
Extrapolate this idea to Iraq: draw the lines in whatever insane erratic way you can, in either majority-minority or even-chance districts. How can you get mad at the people who elected a certain person when you can't even figure out which people elected them? Nothing in here has to contravene the general principles of republican democracy, so it seems immune to that type of charge.
Thoughts?
Then it came to me: gerrymandering. No, seriously. One of the nicer features of US electoral districts is that there's little rhyme or reason to how they're laid out: can anyone outline specifically what areas are in, say, Ann Arbor's US House area and not in that of the adjoining districts (like, on the street level, where the lines are)?
Extrapolate this idea to Iraq: draw the lines in whatever insane erratic way you can, in either majority-minority or even-chance districts. How can you get mad at the people who elected a certain person when you can't even figure out which people elected them? Nothing in here has to contravene the general principles of republican democracy, so it seems immune to that type of charge.
Thoughts?
LINK: As the proportion of Smiths fans in the blogosphere is wildly disproportionate to normal life, I thought I'd pass along this highly entertaining interview with Moz himself.
WELL: I'm glad to welcome on OGIW as a co-blogger. We're still working out some of the technical details (such as how to distinguish posts between the two of us), but she'll be popping in and out with her general pithy observations of politics and culture (as well as deeply important links to things like haggis curling). This should be fun.
15.4.04
WHAT CAN BROWN DO FOR ME?
How about send me a postcard letting me know that they'd tried to deliver me a package, and I wasn't home to get it. Oh, and also have it tell me that my package was going to be returned to sender if I didn't go to their warehouse to pick it up. The date they were going to return it? 4/5/04.
Fortunately for me, I'd already picked it up two weeks ago. And yet they still sent me the postcard...
How about send me a postcard letting me know that they'd tried to deliver me a package, and I wasn't home to get it. Oh, and also have it tell me that my package was going to be returned to sender if I didn't go to their warehouse to pick it up. The date they were going to return it? 4/5/04.
Fortunately for me, I'd already picked it up two weeks ago. And yet they still sent me the postcard...
14.4.04
JOLLYBLOGGER, CALVIN AND ARISTOTLE: Jollyblogger offers the following thoughts (among others) on sin:
"The typical evangelical view of sin is that it is a behavior. Those who have a stronger view of sin would call it an attitude that underlies behavior. This may be where Warren is coming from and if that is the case, then he is certainly no worse, and maybe even better, than many evangelicals in their preaching on sin and repentance.
However, Calvin gets at something we have lost in our day - sin is not a matter of habits (either attitudinal or behavioral) it is a matter of nature. Therefore, true Biblical repentance involves a change of nature, not just a change of mind, behavior, attitude, or habits.
Therein lies the rub - we can't change our nature any more than the leopard can change his spots. A change of nature can only come through the supernatural work of regeneration. Seen in this way, repentance is a gift of grace, not a mere decision to change your mind/attitude/behavior/habits."
I always liked grafting in Aristotle's explanation of the habituation of virtue in this context. I'd say (and I think Kierkegaard would too) that the nature of man when it comes to a discussion of sin is sort of irrelevant: what matters is what people do, and we know at least two things are true: 1. the general existential fact is that people don't do good things and 2. people are capable in some instances of doing good things.
One need not find this to be a conundrum caused by an uncertainty over whether people should be viewed as inherently sinful or inherently good: it's the case, as Aristotle says, that no one is, by choice of their actions, naturally virtuous, but that doesn't prevent people from doing virtuous acts. It's not merely enough to do what a Christian would do (to switch gears): you have to act as they would act for the reasons they would act and in the way they would act. Some of this can be habituated in, and generally is (there may be a model on this that appears later).
For Aristotle, when discussing the habituation of virtue, there's sort of an unanswered question of how or why it is that a person makes the transition from one who does virtuous acts to one who acts virtuously. For the Christian discussing habituation away from sin or into Christianity, it seems like that transition can be assured through the action of the Holy Spirit.
Just a quick thought, anyway. Comments welcome, as always.
"The typical evangelical view of sin is that it is a behavior. Those who have a stronger view of sin would call it an attitude that underlies behavior. This may be where Warren is coming from and if that is the case, then he is certainly no worse, and maybe even better, than many evangelicals in their preaching on sin and repentance.
However, Calvin gets at something we have lost in our day - sin is not a matter of habits (either attitudinal or behavioral) it is a matter of nature. Therefore, true Biblical repentance involves a change of nature, not just a change of mind, behavior, attitude, or habits.
Therein lies the rub - we can't change our nature any more than the leopard can change his spots. A change of nature can only come through the supernatural work of regeneration. Seen in this way, repentance is a gift of grace, not a mere decision to change your mind/attitude/behavior/habits."
I always liked grafting in Aristotle's explanation of the habituation of virtue in this context. I'd say (and I think Kierkegaard would too) that the nature of man when it comes to a discussion of sin is sort of irrelevant: what matters is what people do, and we know at least two things are true: 1. the general existential fact is that people don't do good things and 2. people are capable in some instances of doing good things.
One need not find this to be a conundrum caused by an uncertainty over whether people should be viewed as inherently sinful or inherently good: it's the case, as Aristotle says, that no one is, by choice of their actions, naturally virtuous, but that doesn't prevent people from doing virtuous acts. It's not merely enough to do what a Christian would do (to switch gears): you have to act as they would act for the reasons they would act and in the way they would act. Some of this can be habituated in, and generally is (there may be a model on this that appears later).
For Aristotle, when discussing the habituation of virtue, there's sort of an unanswered question of how or why it is that a person makes the transition from one who does virtuous acts to one who acts virtuously. For the Christian discussing habituation away from sin or into Christianity, it seems like that transition can be assured through the action of the Holy Spirit.
Just a quick thought, anyway. Comments welcome, as always.
LINK: So I'm very curious to see if Diotima has anything to say about this argument on marriage:
" Sullivan argues that marriage encourages "stability, fidelity, and family among homosexuals." I don't know. It is certainly doing less and less of this among heterosexuals. But, in any case, the stabilizing features of marriage have evolved over the millennia to protect children and procreation from the vicissitudes of adult love. How many 50's style marriages found stability only for "the sake of the children"? How many 70's, 80's, and 90's marriages ended because children and procreation became secondary to adult fulfillment? The point is that marriage offers the features Sullivan wants for homosexuals only when it is very narrowly--often repressively--grounded in heterosexuality, procreation, and the socialization of children. When it is defined, as Sullivan says he would have it be, around "the unifying experience of love," it becomes nearly as fickle as love itself--a nasty fight, a single betrayal away from dissolution. Marriage brings "stability" to love by humbling it, by making it often less important than the responsibilities to family and community. "
" Sullivan argues that marriage encourages "stability, fidelity, and family among homosexuals." I don't know. It is certainly doing less and less of this among heterosexuals. But, in any case, the stabilizing features of marriage have evolved over the millennia to protect children and procreation from the vicissitudes of adult love. How many 50's style marriages found stability only for "the sake of the children"? How many 70's, 80's, and 90's marriages ended because children and procreation became secondary to adult fulfillment? The point is that marriage offers the features Sullivan wants for homosexuals only when it is very narrowly--often repressively--grounded in heterosexuality, procreation, and the socialization of children. When it is defined, as Sullivan says he would have it be, around "the unifying experience of love," it becomes nearly as fickle as love itself--a nasty fight, a single betrayal away from dissolution. Marriage brings "stability" to love by humbling it, by making it often less important than the responsibilities to family and community. "
LINK: Shockingly, I didn't watch last night's press conference ("he's not going to say anything that'll change my mind," as I told OGIW), and A Small Victory lets me know I didn't miss anything.
HAHA: In the midst of a good post on leftist uses of race, this aside:
"(By the way, if this is how The Man keeps you down – syndication deals, employment with the Times – then he’s more than welcome to come plant his big establishment foot on my chest anytime.)"
"(By the way, if this is how The Man keeps you down – syndication deals, employment with the Times – then he’s more than welcome to come plant his big establishment foot on my chest anytime.)"
WELL: I just got to decline an offer of admission from The University of Chicago. Cool.
Think there might be some externality-based path dependence coming from this decision?
(nothing against Chicago, which I've been in love with since I picked up my first David Grene translation. It just seems odd I'm not going there)
Think there might be some externality-based path dependence coming from this decision?
(nothing against Chicago, which I've been in love with since I picked up my first David Grene translation. It just seems odd I'm not going there)
13.4.04
QUOTE OF THE DAY: Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question." If you were interested in unpacking the implications of religion in wider society, you could do worse (though you'd have to ignore Marx's irrational dislike of religion as such), since he seems to be teasing out things everyone can agree on (or debate on):
"The attitude of the state, especially the free state, towards religion is only the attitude towards religion of the individuals who compose the state. It follows that man frees himself from a constraint in a political way, through the state, when he transcends his limitations, in contradiction with himself, and in an abstract, narrow and partial way... Finally, even when he proclaims himself an atheist through the intermediary of the state, that is, when he declares the state to be atheist, he is still engrossed in religion, because he only recognizes himself as an atheist in a roundabout way, through an intermediary."
"The attitude of the state, especially the free state, towards religion is only the attitude towards religion of the individuals who compose the state. It follows that man frees himself from a constraint in a political way, through the state, when he transcends his limitations, in contradiction with himself, and in an abstract, narrow and partial way... Finally, even when he proclaims himself an atheist through the intermediary of the state, that is, when he declares the state to be atheist, he is still engrossed in religion, because he only recognizes himself as an atheist in a roundabout way, through an intermediary."
12.4.04
SO TRUE: Sara Butler (who can totally call me Nick if she likes):
"So, all that is kind of true, but I think it neglects something important, which is that Augustine does not hate this life or the things of this world. He doesn't say that the good Christian will despise his temporal existence; in fact, he spends some time explaining why Christians shouldn't just commit suicide after being baptised. Rather, it is that you cannot appreciate this world in the right way, if you don't appreciate the City of God in the right way, which is to say, more. The only reason the evils of this world appear to be evils is because one has the wrong orientation. If you value everything justly, then you can both enjoy this life when it's good and not be too grieved when it's bad. The character of the sufferer is far more important than the nature of the suffering. It's a matter of proper ordering, not picking one over the other."
My own run through Augustine last term (on his attitude toward images, which abuts nicely his views on the material world) left me with the distinct impression that he did not, in any reasonable sense, dislike the realities of the world being as it is (and occasionally was able to turn them around to great rhetorical effect). He just thought that you had to like them after you liked the relevant spiritual realities. Granted, he'd probably say that if you were forced to make a choice, you should give up on the earthly (so he's not really impartial), but most of the time, you won't have to make those choices.
"So, all that is kind of true, but I think it neglects something important, which is that Augustine does not hate this life or the things of this world. He doesn't say that the good Christian will despise his temporal existence; in fact, he spends some time explaining why Christians shouldn't just commit suicide after being baptised. Rather, it is that you cannot appreciate this world in the right way, if you don't appreciate the City of God in the right way, which is to say, more. The only reason the evils of this world appear to be evils is because one has the wrong orientation. If you value everything justly, then you can both enjoy this life when it's good and not be too grieved when it's bad. The character of the sufferer is far more important than the nature of the suffering. It's a matter of proper ordering, not picking one over the other."
My own run through Augustine last term (on his attitude toward images, which abuts nicely his views on the material world) left me with the distinct impression that he did not, in any reasonable sense, dislike the realities of the world being as it is (and occasionally was able to turn them around to great rhetorical effect). He just thought that you had to like them after you liked the relevant spiritual realities. Granted, he'd probably say that if you were forced to make a choice, you should give up on the earthly (so he's not really impartial), but most of the time, you won't have to make those choices.
WELL: It finally happened today. After four years of philosophy, I finally hit the point where I just found the entire premise of what was being discussed completely pointless. I raised one of those foundational objections that used to annoy me so much (why are we talking about forming beliefs from scratch when no one ever actually does it that way, nor could they even if they tried?), and then spent the rest of class doing matrix algebra in my notebook.
Somewhere, David Hucul is laughing evilly.
Somewhere, David Hucul is laughing evilly.
LINK: Two notes I found interesting from this NYT article on doing work v. having fun as an undergrad:
"The "slow down" movement on campuses reveals the many mixed messages sent out to students. Universities tout their exclusivity, their low admissions rates, and scour the country for the most desirable students. Then, the newest freshman class of academic superstars - who also happen to be prize-winning scientists, professional-caliber musicians, athletes, leaders and do-gooders - arrive on campus and are promptly told to cool it (but still get high grades to get into good graduate schools)."
In my experience, it's pretty easy to get good-but-not perfect grades on not a lot of work (and thus lots of time for relaxation and fun). The difference between Dara's grades (I'm not going to give you a number, but suffice to say you couldn't do better than she's doing) and mine is not really all that great, but if you look at the marginal hours of work we do per week to get those grades, it's insanely out of proportion (though she's now adopted, largely (I like to think) due to my evil influence, the habit of just sort of ignoring work you don't want to do).
"They are worried about the U.S. News and World Report rankings, as well as about sending their students to top graduate schools and good jobs."
Idle curiosity and vanity compelled me to check the US News rankings for Political Science (and Theory) programs, and pretty much nothing had changed. And even if something had changed, a one-year alteration doesn't really mean anything. Why choose one year's changes as your relevent level of aggreggation? Not for any good reason I can think of.
"The "slow down" movement on campuses reveals the many mixed messages sent out to students. Universities tout their exclusivity, their low admissions rates, and scour the country for the most desirable students. Then, the newest freshman class of academic superstars - who also happen to be prize-winning scientists, professional-caliber musicians, athletes, leaders and do-gooders - arrive on campus and are promptly told to cool it (but still get high grades to get into good graduate schools)."
In my experience, it's pretty easy to get good-but-not perfect grades on not a lot of work (and thus lots of time for relaxation and fun). The difference between Dara's grades (I'm not going to give you a number, but suffice to say you couldn't do better than she's doing) and mine is not really all that great, but if you look at the marginal hours of work we do per week to get those grades, it's insanely out of proportion (though she's now adopted, largely (I like to think) due to my evil influence, the habit of just sort of ignoring work you don't want to do).
"They are worried about the U.S. News and World Report rankings, as well as about sending their students to top graduate schools and good jobs."
Idle curiosity and vanity compelled me to check the US News rankings for Political Science (and Theory) programs, and pretty much nothing had changed. And even if something had changed, a one-year alteration doesn't really mean anything. Why choose one year's changes as your relevent level of aggreggation? Not for any good reason I can think of.
WELL: This is almost a good idea:
"I don't mind when students slip into the back of a lecture hall late, but when the doors are in the front of the room and the teacher's voice is easily overwhelmed, please have courtesy and remember that a late entry imposes costs on punctual students, and that 12(!) late entries in the course of a 50-minute class tempt me to resort to vigilante retaliation. If I'm ever an instructor, I will lock the doors to my classroom a few minutes after I start lecturing, to internalize the externalities."
I say almost a good idea, because it's pretty clear that if you did that, most people would loudly try to open the door multiple times, then finally knock on it until someone let them in. In other words, the solution would probably be worse than the problem.
"I don't mind when students slip into the back of a lecture hall late, but when the doors are in the front of the room and the teacher's voice is easily overwhelmed, please have courtesy and remember that a late entry imposes costs on punctual students, and that 12(!) late entries in the course of a 50-minute class tempt me to resort to vigilante retaliation. If I'm ever an instructor, I will lock the doors to my classroom a few minutes after I start lecturing, to internalize the externalities."
I say almost a good idea, because it's pretty clear that if you did that, most people would loudly try to open the door multiple times, then finally knock on it until someone let them in. In other words, the solution would probably be worse than the problem.
11.4.04
HAHA:
Me: having a roommate will shame me into keeping things cleaner
OGIW: i dread living with carl... he's just as messy as i am and in more or less the same way
Me: well, your children will probably just end up being like pigpen
OGIW: probably so
OGIW: as long as they don't have stink lines coming off of them
Me: probably not
Me: they outlawed those back in the 70s
Me: lowers air pollution that way
OGIW: i hear the bush administration is trying to have that regulation repealed
OGIW: the stink industry has been complaining
Me: well, the stink industy is very powerful like that
[the following happened simultaneously]
notbyrondorgan: the state of Ohio is built around the stink industry
spacegirldreams: they more or less control the state of indiana
Me: having a roommate will shame me into keeping things cleaner
OGIW: i dread living with carl... he's just as messy as i am and in more or less the same way
Me: well, your children will probably just end up being like pigpen
OGIW: probably so
OGIW: as long as they don't have stink lines coming off of them
Me: probably not
Me: they outlawed those back in the 70s
Me: lowers air pollution that way
OGIW: i hear the bush administration is trying to have that regulation repealed
OGIW: the stink industry has been complaining
Me: well, the stink industy is very powerful like that
[the following happened simultaneously]
notbyrondorgan: the state of Ohio is built around the stink industry
spacegirldreams: they more or less control the state of indiana
QUOTE: Benjamin Libet, "Do We Have Free Will?"
"How do our findings relate to the questions of whether one may be regarded as guilty or sinful, in various religious and philosophical systems? If one experiences a conscious wish or urge to perform a socially unacceptable act, should that be regarded as a sinful event even if the urge has been vetoed and no act has occurred? Some religious systems answer yes... The mere appearance of an intention to act could not be controlled consciously; only its final consummation in a motor act could be consciously controlled. Therefore, a religious system that castigates an individual for simply having a mental intention or impulse to do something unacceptable, even when this is not acted out, would create a physiologically insurmountable moral and psychological difficulty.
Indeed, insistence on regarding an unacceptable urge to act as sinful, even when no act ensues, would make virtually all individuals sinners."
I presume the author thinks he's making a devastating point against Christianity here, but he's not telling me anything I didn't already know.
"How do our findings relate to the questions of whether one may be regarded as guilty or sinful, in various religious and philosophical systems? If one experiences a conscious wish or urge to perform a socially unacceptable act, should that be regarded as a sinful event even if the urge has been vetoed and no act has occurred? Some religious systems answer yes... The mere appearance of an intention to act could not be controlled consciously; only its final consummation in a motor act could be consciously controlled. Therefore, a religious system that castigates an individual for simply having a mental intention or impulse to do something unacceptable, even when this is not acted out, would create a physiologically insurmountable moral and psychological difficulty.
Indeed, insistence on regarding an unacceptable urge to act as sinful, even when no act ensues, would make virtually all individuals sinners."
I presume the author thinks he's making a devastating point against Christianity here, but he's not telling me anything I didn't already know.
LINK: Belle Waring gives a pretty good explanation of why Coke in plastic bottles tastes so bad, and why it's all bad compared to Coke internationally (bonus points for getting me to read through a critique of US agricultural policy without my tuning it out halfway through).
LINK: Hispter Detritus has a good defense of the pop music canon against trying-to-be-cool critics:
" Take a look at the table of contents, and tell me what nearly all these albums have in common. If you answered "they're all really good", you're missing the point (though I don't blame you). If you answered "they're all really big sellers", you're a bit closer, though the inclusion of Parsons, Patti, Beefheart, Costello and Wilco (and the nonexistent Smile) does mitigate that idea a bit. And if you answered "most of these aren't so much critical darlings as they are popular albums amongst the general populace that also happen to be critically acclaimed", well, dingdingdingding you win the Showcase Showdown and get to drive home in a brand-new Chrysler Cordoba. This isn't a book about tearing down critical darlings -- while I have even less interest in reading some pseudo-rebel hacks tear any of these bands apart than I do in seeing them pee all over Led Zeppelin, where's all the crit-dork-cred bands? Where's the Velvet Underground, Nick Drake, the New York Dolls, Kraftwerk, Can, Television, the Slits, the Fall, Black Flag, Descendents, Fugazi, Pavement, Sleater-Kinney or Lucinda Williams? As far as critical canons go they're a lot more important and pervasive than a lot of these groups that were disposed of by critics as "irrelevant" or "obsolete" after punk hit (Skynyrd, Floyd, the Doors) or were never darlings in the first place (Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness?! RAM?!?!?!)."
" Take a look at the table of contents, and tell me what nearly all these albums have in common. If you answered "they're all really good", you're missing the point (though I don't blame you). If you answered "they're all really big sellers", you're a bit closer, though the inclusion of Parsons, Patti, Beefheart, Costello and Wilco (and the nonexistent Smile) does mitigate that idea a bit. And if you answered "most of these aren't so much critical darlings as they are popular albums amongst the general populace that also happen to be critically acclaimed", well, dingdingdingding you win the Showcase Showdown and get to drive home in a brand-new Chrysler Cordoba. This isn't a book about tearing down critical darlings -- while I have even less interest in reading some pseudo-rebel hacks tear any of these bands apart than I do in seeing them pee all over Led Zeppelin, where's all the crit-dork-cred bands? Where's the Velvet Underground, Nick Drake, the New York Dolls, Kraftwerk, Can, Television, the Slits, the Fall, Black Flag, Descendents, Fugazi, Pavement, Sleater-Kinney or Lucinda Williams? As far as critical canons go they're a lot more important and pervasive than a lot of these groups that were disposed of by critics as "irrelevant" or "obsolete" after punk hit (Skynyrd, Floyd, the Doors) or were never darlings in the first place (Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness?! RAM?!?!?!)."
10.4.04
WELL: So I read the memo. My conclusions:
1993-OBL begins scouting African embassies
1998-OBL bombs African embassies
1998-OBL's cells in NYC are recruiting
So, obviously, something was going to happen a month after the president read about this.
Also, 70-OBL related investigations sounds like a lot, until you realize that there's not really any reason on the basis of what's in the briefing to assume that they're all relating directly to what was going on specifically.
And also, if there were 70 investigations on this very topic, why wasn't there another warning prior to 9/11?
1993-OBL begins scouting African embassies
1998-OBL bombs African embassies
1998-OBL's cells in NYC are recruiting
So, obviously, something was going to happen a month after the president read about this.
Also, 70-OBL related investigations sounds like a lot, until you realize that there's not really any reason on the basis of what's in the briefing to assume that they're all relating directly to what was going on specifically.
And also, if there were 70 investigations on this very topic, why wasn't there another warning prior to 9/11?
WELL: Like most people with a free evening after a stressful week, I've been busy putting together mix cds (okay, so it's not that normal, but it's no weirder than walking to Trader Joe's). The certain-to-be-brilliant "Songs and the Songs They Rip Off" (e.g. "Fell In Love With A Girl" and "Search and Destroy") is still another two pairs of songs away from completion (though bouyed by today's discovery that Pedro the Lion's I-sing-about-God-in-a-non-ironic-manner schtick is more or less directly lifted from J. Spaceman), but here's what a few hours of work came up with:
"One Headlight" -The Wallflowers
"Where Angels Play" -Stone Roses
"Dishes" -Pulp
"A Common Disaster" -Cowboy Junkies
"Erase/Rewing" -Cardigans
"Promise" -Pedro the Lion
"Mysterions" -Portishead
"Let's Go Away For Awhile" -Beach Boys
"Let's Straighten It Out" -O.V. Wright
"Like Dylan In the Movies" -Belle and Sebastian
"The Flowers of Guatemala" -R.E.M.
"Mass Pike" -Get Up Kids
"We Live As We Dream Alone" -Gang of Four
"Lucky" -Radiohead
"Subterraneans" -David Bowie
"Waiting for the Sun" -Jayhawks
"Positively 4th Street" -Bob Dylan
"One Headlight" -The Wallflowers
"Where Angels Play" -Stone Roses
"Dishes" -Pulp
"A Common Disaster" -Cowboy Junkies
"Erase/Rewing" -Cardigans
"Promise" -Pedro the Lion
"Mysterions" -Portishead
"Let's Go Away For Awhile" -Beach Boys
"Let's Straighten It Out" -O.V. Wright
"Like Dylan In the Movies" -Belle and Sebastian
"The Flowers of Guatemala" -R.E.M.
"Mass Pike" -Get Up Kids
"We Live As We Dream Alone" -Gang of Four
"Lucky" -Radiohead
"Subterraneans" -David Bowie
"Waiting for the Sun" -Jayhawks
"Positively 4th Street" -Bob Dylan
WELL: Jollyblogger:
"Socrates said: "The unexamined life is not worth living." Turns out, according to Paul Musgrave that "examining your life" is pretty much what the task of philosophy is all about."
Not academic philosophy (or at least not any academic philosophy I've encountered at one of the better universities for it). Even in my freedom and moral responsibility seminar, our arguments are more often about whether entailments are acceptable than the normative value of any set of claims.
As I discovered, though, if you really want to ask those questions, the best place to go is political theory.
"Socrates said: "The unexamined life is not worth living." Turns out, according to Paul Musgrave that "examining your life" is pretty much what the task of philosophy is all about."
Not academic philosophy (or at least not any academic philosophy I've encountered at one of the better universities for it). Even in my freedom and moral responsibility seminar, our arguments are more often about whether entailments are acceptable than the normative value of any set of claims.
As I discovered, though, if you really want to ask those questions, the best place to go is political theory.
LINK: Top 50 Worst Guitar Solos of All Time. Nothing like indie-rock kids being pejorative:
"2. "Free Bird" by Lynyrd Skynyrd
Soloist: Gary Rossington, Ed King, Allen Collins
Album: Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin-Nerd
Year: 1973
Unless you're Forrest Gump, this isn't much of a surprise. This impotent three- pronged hillbilly guitar attack is exhausting to say the least. "They fingers bled on that thar solo," Junior Samples says. Well, I slammed my fingers in a car door when I was seven. They bled. That wasn't too bright, and neither is the soloing on one of the most revered rock compositions in history. For a solo that's supposed to be akin to a spontaneous "backyard jam," it sounds forced and phlegmatic. A couple of years before, Neil Young (Skynyrd's arch enemy) recorded the ideal blueprint for long- playing guitar sparring matches on "Down by the River." The more you hear "Free Bird" the more evident it becomes how bereft of ideas these bloated, attitudinal hickoids really were."
"2. "Free Bird" by Lynyrd Skynyrd
Soloist: Gary Rossington, Ed King, Allen Collins
Album: Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin-Nerd
Year: 1973
Unless you're Forrest Gump, this isn't much of a surprise. This impotent three- pronged hillbilly guitar attack is exhausting to say the least. "They fingers bled on that thar solo," Junior Samples says. Well, I slammed my fingers in a car door when I was seven. They bled. That wasn't too bright, and neither is the soloing on one of the most revered rock compositions in history. For a solo that's supposed to be akin to a spontaneous "backyard jam," it sounds forced and phlegmatic. A couple of years before, Neil Young (Skynyrd's arch enemy) recorded the ideal blueprint for long- playing guitar sparring matches on "Down by the River." The more you hear "Free Bird" the more evident it becomes how bereft of ideas these bloated, attitudinal hickoids really were."
UM, YEAH, SURE: Josh Claybourn shows some love to The Beatles, and engages in the following bit of questionable reasoning:
"There are more records, and the list could go on. Sales don't always mean greatness. After all, Britney Spears is selling albums. But when VH1 polls musicians, the Beatles are consistently ranked as the greatest of all time."
In other words, even though popularity is not necessarily a sign of quality, look at this sign of popularity! It must entail quality.
"There are more records, and the list could go on. Sales don't always mean greatness. After all, Britney Spears is selling albums. But when VH1 polls musicians, the Beatles are consistently ranked as the greatest of all time."
In other words, even though popularity is not necessarily a sign of quality, look at this sign of popularity! It must entail quality.
9.4.04
WELL I DON'T REALLY NEED AN ARTICLE TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME:
"As the war in Iraq spins out of control, why isn't John Kerry launching a frontal assault on Bush's failed policies?" (teaser to today's main Salon piece)
Well, you know, because that might highlight the fact that JK doesn't actually have any plan at all for what to do in iraq.
"As the war in Iraq spins out of control, why isn't John Kerry launching a frontal assault on Bush's failed policies?" (teaser to today's main Salon piece)
Well, you know, because that might highlight the fact that JK doesn't actually have any plan at all for what to do in iraq.
QUOTE: Brilliant:
"But now, Shonda and I are going where no female conservative pundit has ever gone - Gender Studies 101! That's right, folks, Shonda and I are going to spend a whole quarter reading Catherine MacKinnon and Judith Butler so you don't have to.
So far, we've discussed whether the reason everyone was so upset about Janet Jackson's exposed breast was because a black woman was owning her own sexuality and what would have happened if, way back in the state of nature, women had won and men had lost ("We'd make men take care of the babies," speculated one student). Shonda and I are still struggling to figure out how/if we can participate, but once we do - hilarity will ensue! See as Sara dukes it out with Rachel "Hamlet is creating an incestuous and necrophiliac re-enactment of the love triangle between his mother, father, and uncle when he wrestles with Laertes in Ophelia's grave" Swift, an old nemesis from the Hamlet class of Fall, 2002! Watch as Shonda discovers her authentic self is actually a black lesbian named LaShonda! Tune in next week to find out the difference between sex, sex category, and gender!"
"But now, Shonda and I are going where no female conservative pundit has ever gone - Gender Studies 101! That's right, folks, Shonda and I are going to spend a whole quarter reading Catherine MacKinnon and Judith Butler so you don't have to.
So far, we've discussed whether the reason everyone was so upset about Janet Jackson's exposed breast was because a black woman was owning her own sexuality and what would have happened if, way back in the state of nature, women had won and men had lost ("We'd make men take care of the babies," speculated one student). Shonda and I are still struggling to figure out how/if we can participate, but once we do - hilarity will ensue! See as Sara dukes it out with Rachel "Hamlet is creating an incestuous and necrophiliac re-enactment of the love triangle between his mother, father, and uncle when he wrestles with Laertes in Ophelia's grave" Swift, an old nemesis from the Hamlet class of Fall, 2002! Watch as Shonda discovers her authentic self is actually a black lesbian named LaShonda! Tune in next week to find out the difference between sex, sex category, and gender!"
8.4.04
QUOTE: Norman Geras:
"Leave aside 'manifestly illegal', Iraq not being a threat and anything else you may consider disputable. But can you see anything missing from this list? I can. It's odd that Milne should have overlooked it, since at the beginning of the same article one of the people he's especially indignant about ('Where are they now, the cheerleaders for war on Iraq?') is Ann Clwyd; and we all know what the constant theme was of her arguments for the war. Still, it just doesn't figure in Milne's bill of particulars, like it never did figure in his thinking in the run-up to the war. He could do with reading the first three paragraphs of this, which I highlighted yesterday. I think he'll find, too, that those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq from Baathist oppression have not suddenly disappeared or gone into hiding."
"Leave aside 'manifestly illegal', Iraq not being a threat and anything else you may consider disputable. But can you see anything missing from this list? I can. It's odd that Milne should have overlooked it, since at the beginning of the same article one of the people he's especially indignant about ('Where are they now, the cheerleaders for war on Iraq?') is Ann Clwyd; and we all know what the constant theme was of her arguments for the war. Still, it just doesn't figure in Milne's bill of particulars, like it never did figure in his thinking in the run-up to the war. He could do with reading the first three paragraphs of this, which I highlighted yesterday. I think he'll find, too, that those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq from Baathist oppression have not suddenly disappeared or gone into hiding."
QUOTE: As pointed to by Harry's Place:
"An awful lot of "told you so’s" will be heaped on Mr Bush and Mr Blair in the wake of this week’s events in Iraq. Some of them are justified in terms of criticising the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the war and Mr Bush’s tendency to make enemies at times when friends would be of more use.
But I do object to the insidious notion that Iraq is such a difficult, fissiparous country to run that it really needed a dictator to keep it in place, and that Saddam Hussein offered the West a quiet life and was worth living with. It is a view that lurks skin-deep in many of the arguments we are hearing this week. What alternative are the critics really proposing? "
So, all you gloom-and-doom-in-Iraq people, any idea of what we could do to actually, you know, make things better?
"An awful lot of "told you so’s" will be heaped on Mr Bush and Mr Blair in the wake of this week’s events in Iraq. Some of them are justified in terms of criticising the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the war and Mr Bush’s tendency to make enemies at times when friends would be of more use.
But I do object to the insidious notion that Iraq is such a difficult, fissiparous country to run that it really needed a dictator to keep it in place, and that Saddam Hussein offered the West a quiet life and was worth living with. It is a view that lurks skin-deep in many of the arguments we are hearing this week. What alternative are the critics really proposing? "
So, all you gloom-and-doom-in-Iraq people, any idea of what we could do to actually, you know, make things better?
LINK: Norman Geras has some thoughts on how Iraq's going, but I want to take issue with something he quotes:
"In two decades' time, historians may instead compare Iraq to France, which after shaking off the royal family plunged into dark days of terror before emerging a true democracy."
1. 'shaking off' is definitely the best euphemism for regicide I've ever heard
2. Right, France, which emerged from the dark days of terror into a true democracy...
...which then got ovetaken by an emperor, who was overthrown, and replaced by various and sundry republics and monarchies (and collaborationist quasi-fascist puppet governments) with variously bloody revolutions, until they finally got rid of DeGaulle, and so have been clearly in the camp of electoral democracy for almost 40 years (and even then, they didn't make the transition as nobly as Spain did).
If Iraq is really like France, then we're all screwed (sorry, can't resist a good opportunity for France-bashing).
"In two decades' time, historians may instead compare Iraq to France, which after shaking off the royal family plunged into dark days of terror before emerging a true democracy."
1. 'shaking off' is definitely the best euphemism for regicide I've ever heard
2. Right, France, which emerged from the dark days of terror into a true democracy...
...which then got ovetaken by an emperor, who was overthrown, and replaced by various and sundry republics and monarchies (and collaborationist quasi-fascist puppet governments) with variously bloody revolutions, until they finally got rid of DeGaulle, and so have been clearly in the camp of electoral democracy for almost 40 years (and even then, they didn't make the transition as nobly as Spain did).
If Iraq is really like France, then we're all screwed (sorry, can't resist a good opportunity for France-bashing).
QUOTES: various Aristotle for the evening (schoolwork interrupting on my fun again). First, a nice anti-utilitarian argument:
"Now in everything the pleasant or pleasure is most to be guarded against; for we do not judge it impartially."
-EN, II. 9
And I think we can all agree to the truth of the following:
"For men are good in but one way, but bad in many."
-II. 6
"Now in everything the pleasant or pleasure is most to be guarded against; for we do not judge it impartially."
-EN, II. 9
And I think we can all agree to the truth of the following:
"For men are good in but one way, but bad in many."
-II. 6
WELL: If you've not been following this discussion on naturalism and intelligent design (also here, with a slightly-too-smug for my tastes rebuttal here), I thought I'd throw in my entirely tangental two cents:
The appealing thing about Christianity to me (and why I particularly like the Kierkegaardian-Augustinian tradition within Christianity) is the notion that we believe not in spite of the fact that our belief is paradoxical, but rather because our belief is paradoxical. If you're not particularly hung up on Enlightenment Rationalism (everything has to have a comprehensible explanation because, you know, we say it has to), this is unproblematic.
One of Kierkegaard's books (The Concept of Anxiety) deals with this problem rather more particularly, and argues that faith is always (can only be) quantitative steps to a qualitative leap--that is, any argument for the existence of God or the truth of Christianity can only take you so far. And to that end, I'm pretty much willing to leave arguments for or against intelligent design alone.
This isn't to say I don't care, exactly: mostly I care about the way the universe is because of how it impacts the problem of free will. I tend towards believing in a deterministic theory of how the universe functions of roughly the van Inwagen type (the conjunction of the state of the world at any given time plus the laws of nature entails the state of the world at another given time) though I'd make a minor adjustment to how he argues it (the entailment works backwards in time in a straightforward manner, but it doesn't quite work the same going forward (even though it kind of does)--Principle of Alternate Possibilities and all). Any physical theory that is consistent with the truth of determinism is fine by me*--I take it by faith that God stands behind whatever it is, as a wise man once said:
"Our Sages have said (Yemen Midrash on Gen. i. 1)," It is impossible to give a full account of the Creation to man. Therefore Scripture simply tells us, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. i. 1)."
*then again, I think you can read valid free-will preservation into indeterminism, too, so maybe I'm just biased.
The appealing thing about Christianity to me (and why I particularly like the Kierkegaardian-Augustinian tradition within Christianity) is the notion that we believe not in spite of the fact that our belief is paradoxical, but rather because our belief is paradoxical. If you're not particularly hung up on Enlightenment Rationalism (everything has to have a comprehensible explanation because, you know, we say it has to), this is unproblematic.
One of Kierkegaard's books (The Concept of Anxiety) deals with this problem rather more particularly, and argues that faith is always (can only be) quantitative steps to a qualitative leap--that is, any argument for the existence of God or the truth of Christianity can only take you so far. And to that end, I'm pretty much willing to leave arguments for or against intelligent design alone.
This isn't to say I don't care, exactly: mostly I care about the way the universe is because of how it impacts the problem of free will. I tend towards believing in a deterministic theory of how the universe functions of roughly the van Inwagen type (the conjunction of the state of the world at any given time plus the laws of nature entails the state of the world at another given time) though I'd make a minor adjustment to how he argues it (the entailment works backwards in time in a straightforward manner, but it doesn't quite work the same going forward (even though it kind of does)--Principle of Alternate Possibilities and all). Any physical theory that is consistent with the truth of determinism is fine by me*--I take it by faith that God stands behind whatever it is, as a wise man once said:
"Our Sages have said (Yemen Midrash on Gen. i. 1)," It is impossible to give a full account of the Creation to man. Therefore Scripture simply tells us, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. i. 1)."
*then again, I think you can read valid free-will preservation into indeterminism, too, so maybe I'm just biased.
7.4.04
LINK: If you ever wanted to feel vastly superior to a writer for the New York Times, here's your chance
CLEARLY, THE TORONTO BLUE JAYS ARE GOING TO BE REALLY BAD THIS SEASON: Can there be any other explanation for a Tigers sweep. I say yes: Detroit is allowed to have one good professional sports team, and what with the impending hockey lockout, all the luck has to go somewhere.
Consider me officially on the bandwagon (I kinda was at the end of last year anyway).
Consider me officially on the bandwagon (I kinda was at the end of last year anyway).
INDEED:
Magister Mundi sum!
"I am the Master of the Universe!"
You are full of yourself, but you're so cool you
probably deserve to be. Rock on.
Which Weird Latin Phrase Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Magister Mundi sum!
"I am the Master of the Universe!"
You are full of yourself, but you're so cool you
probably deserve to be. Rock on.
Which Weird Latin Phrase Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
QUOTE: Cup of Chica on one of my personality disorders:
"(Do the shy always have a lack of "social know-how"? I've encountered many extroverted loners: friendly, empathic, and witty in conversation, but "shy" by self-description. I'm thinking of my mother, a good friend, and that friend's good friend, and some others, almost all women: they're charming in social situations, but rarely enter them, disliking groups or preferring a private or solitary lifestyle. The article's too quick to conflate shyness with slow or stunted social development, and assumes that shyness expresses itself in all new social experiences, rather than expressing itself under specific circumstances or in a person's priorities.)"
"(Do the shy always have a lack of "social know-how"? I've encountered many extroverted loners: friendly, empathic, and witty in conversation, but "shy" by self-description. I'm thinking of my mother, a good friend, and that friend's good friend, and some others, almost all women: they're charming in social situations, but rarely enter them, disliking groups or preferring a private or solitary lifestyle. The article's too quick to conflate shyness with slow or stunted social development, and assumes that shyness expresses itself in all new social experiences, rather than expressing itself under specific circumstances or in a person's priorities.)"
LINK: I listened a bit to the new Wilco album (available for free download), and Jeff Tweedy definitely now thinks he's White Album-era Beatles. Yeesh.
WHY YES, NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT, POLITICS IS A LITTLE LIKE RULING OVER THE DEAD:
"and if in that time there were among them any honors, praises, and prizes for the man who is sharpest at making things out as they go by, and most remembers which of them are accustomed to pass before, which after, and which at the same time as others, and who thereby is most able to divine what is going to come, in your opinion would he be desirous of them and envy those who are honored and hold power among these men? Or, rather, would he be affected as Homer says and want very much 'to be on the soil, a serf to another man, to a portionless man,' and to undergo anything whatsoever rather than opine those things and live that way?'
'Yes,' he said, 'I suppose he would prefer to undergo everything rather than live this way.'"
-Plato, Republic VII 516d
"and if in that time there were among them any honors, praises, and prizes for the man who is sharpest at making things out as they go by, and most remembers which of them are accustomed to pass before, which after, and which at the same time as others, and who thereby is most able to divine what is going to come, in your opinion would he be desirous of them and envy those who are honored and hold power among these men? Or, rather, would he be affected as Homer says and want very much 'to be on the soil, a serf to another man, to a portionless man,' and to undergo anything whatsoever rather than opine those things and live that way?'
'Yes,' he said, 'I suppose he would prefer to undergo everything rather than live this way.'"
-Plato, Republic VII 516d
6.4.04
LINK: Ann Arbor Is Overrated has a nice post on the AA News letter to the editor written by a landlord complaining that housing was so bad not because of landlords' complete and total failure to maintain their housing, but because students constantly trash apartments, etc. Let's leave aside the fact that it took three days for them to do anything about my front door after someone tried to break it down through brute force; let's also not discuss the ten days in january when I had no heat. This made me laugh (jokes sometimes represent things we find unsettling because they're true, right?):
"There you students go again with your outrageous expectations. I’m a landlord in this city, and I’m just sick and tired of you stupid whiners. If the shelter I provide would have been good enough for Jesus Christ, Ghengis Khan, and the Plantagenets, it's good enough for you. I get calls at all hours of the day and night asking me to fix the heat, supply running water, etc. etc. etc. Hell, once a student even called me – ME – to tell me that there was an electrical fire in the house. Don’t you kids know that I have a life? The fire department can put out the fire, and the hole in the wall won’t matter over the summer. And complaining about the broken locks -- please -- doesn't your lease have a clause about how I’m not responsible for stolen property? Put your damn computers and mountain bikes in a safe-deposit box if you don’t want them stolen. Brats."
"There you students go again with your outrageous expectations. I’m a landlord in this city, and I’m just sick and tired of you stupid whiners. If the shelter I provide would have been good enough for Jesus Christ, Ghengis Khan, and the Plantagenets, it's good enough for you. I get calls at all hours of the day and night asking me to fix the heat, supply running water, etc. etc. etc. Hell, once a student even called me – ME – to tell me that there was an electrical fire in the house. Don’t you kids know that I have a life? The fire department can put out the fire, and the hole in the wall won’t matter over the summer. And complaining about the broken locks -- please -- doesn't your lease have a clause about how I’m not responsible for stolen property? Put your damn computers and mountain bikes in a safe-deposit box if you don’t want them stolen. Brats."
BACKWARDS INDUCTION ON IRAQ: Let's see if I can do this with no graphs.
So there's some behavior, which we can all agree is pretty undesirable whatever your goals are for Iraq, that's been going on lately. Now the thesis has been floated by some (OGIW in particular) that the motivations of the mass of people don't really matter in terms of what we should be doing about this situation--it's the behavior alone that matters. Here's why it doesn't work:
there are four options, essentially, available to the US/UK: overwhelm the Iraqis with military force, increase the intensity of the 'hearts and minds' campaign, continue taking out insurgents when possible on a catch-as-catch-can basis, or leave Iraq altogether. The problem with relying on the behavior alone is that the behavior can entail any one of the above to be the right policy option, depending on whether you want to crush all resistence, lower the number of people available for attacks, cause minimal damage or, you know, not worry about it anymore. But more troublesome, relying on the behavior alone doesn't give you any indication of whether your intended effect will take place, or what the other possible consequences of a policy decision could be.
If you go backwards a step and look at what dispositions might produce the behavior we're seeing, you start to get a better idea of what the policies should be: if the people largely side with the insurgents but only because they assume the insurgents will win, a large show of force might be warranted. If people support us but are worried we're going to pull out too soon, a hearts and minds campaign might embolden Iraqi democrats. If people by and large don't support the insurgents, then solving problems as they come up will be a better solution. In each case, what the understanding of the underlying psychology allows is for us to make a decision where the consequences of that decision are going to be relatively more obvious than they would be otherwise.
So there's some behavior, which we can all agree is pretty undesirable whatever your goals are for Iraq, that's been going on lately. Now the thesis has been floated by some (OGIW in particular) that the motivations of the mass of people don't really matter in terms of what we should be doing about this situation--it's the behavior alone that matters. Here's why it doesn't work:
there are four options, essentially, available to the US/UK: overwhelm the Iraqis with military force, increase the intensity of the 'hearts and minds' campaign, continue taking out insurgents when possible on a catch-as-catch-can basis, or leave Iraq altogether. The problem with relying on the behavior alone is that the behavior can entail any one of the above to be the right policy option, depending on whether you want to crush all resistence, lower the number of people available for attacks, cause minimal damage or, you know, not worry about it anymore. But more troublesome, relying on the behavior alone doesn't give you any indication of whether your intended effect will take place, or what the other possible consequences of a policy decision could be.
If you go backwards a step and look at what dispositions might produce the behavior we're seeing, you start to get a better idea of what the policies should be: if the people largely side with the insurgents but only because they assume the insurgents will win, a large show of force might be warranted. If people support us but are worried we're going to pull out too soon, a hearts and minds campaign might embolden Iraqi democrats. If people by and large don't support the insurgents, then solving problems as they come up will be a better solution. In each case, what the understanding of the underlying psychology allows is for us to make a decision where the consequences of that decision are going to be relatively more obvious than they would be otherwise.
LINK: interesting post on the consequences of the rise of the iPod:
"It means that music downloaders are being joined by a new demographic; professionals who like to think of themselves as law-abiding, people who own shares, people who vote. In short, people with clout. As opposed to frightened twelve year olds.
Because whichever way the music industry wants to cut it, and whichever model the fawning IT industry chooses to interact with them, music prices are set way too high, and artificially too high. Be it iTunes or Janusonline music is being (or will be) sold/rented for more than most people are prepared to pay. And let’s not even get into the negative privacy and security externalities of technical measures to protect the music industry’s copyright. Because somehow I don’t see the disadvantage or harm to consumers of invasive and inefficient rights protection technologies being built into content-pricing. Prices are patently more than the market is willing to bear (a dollar a song? 10 - 20+ dollars a month to ‘rent’ your music collection?), but the music industry has responded by criminalising its consumers.
Except that now, thanks to iPod, more and more of the consumers who download their music and are fed up of being ripped off are stroppy, articulate, well-connected professionals. These people really don’t like being called criminals and they can hire lawyers if someone tries it. Hell, plenty of them are lawyers themselves."
"It means that music downloaders are being joined by a new demographic; professionals who like to think of themselves as law-abiding, people who own shares, people who vote. In short, people with clout. As opposed to frightened twelve year olds.
Because whichever way the music industry wants to cut it, and whichever model the fawning IT industry chooses to interact with them, music prices are set way too high, and artificially too high. Be it iTunes or Janusonline music is being (or will be) sold/rented for more than most people are prepared to pay. And let’s not even get into the negative privacy and security externalities of technical measures to protect the music industry’s copyright. Because somehow I don’t see the disadvantage or harm to consumers of invasive and inefficient rights protection technologies being built into content-pricing. Prices are patently more than the market is willing to bear (a dollar a song? 10 - 20+ dollars a month to ‘rent’ your music collection?), but the music industry has responded by criminalising its consumers.
Except that now, thanks to iPod, more and more of the consumers who download their music and are fed up of being ripped off are stroppy, articulate, well-connected professionals. These people really don’t like being called criminals and they can hire lawyers if someone tries it. Hell, plenty of them are lawyers themselves."
QUOTE: Discoshaman says it best:
"One of my good friends has contacts with the Reformist movement in Iran. He's mystified by the negativity towards Bush by some in America. As he puts it, all the dissidents in Iran are for Bush.
Kerry brags about unnamed foreign leaders who prefer him, as if that should sway us. If I had my choice though, I'd want a president loved by the freedom activists of Iran, not the bureaucrats of France.
And while Kerry may have the respect of Old Europe (for what it's worth and as long as it lasts), Bush clearly has the respect of the leaders of North Korea, Pakistan, Libya and Iran. This is a much more valuable foreign currency than the Euro, and a type which Kerry wouldn't begin to know how to earn."
"One of my good friends has contacts with the Reformist movement in Iran. He's mystified by the negativity towards Bush by some in America. As he puts it, all the dissidents in Iran are for Bush.
Kerry brags about unnamed foreign leaders who prefer him, as if that should sway us. If I had my choice though, I'd want a president loved by the freedom activists of Iran, not the bureaucrats of France.
And while Kerry may have the respect of Old Europe (for what it's worth and as long as it lasts), Bush clearly has the respect of the leaders of North Korea, Pakistan, Libya and Iran. This is a much more valuable foreign currency than the Euro, and a type which Kerry wouldn't begin to know how to earn."
QUOTE: Most bands (like the Fleetwood Mac, or Patti Smith or Bruce Springsteen) only play maybe five different songs, they just change the tempo slightly and call the songs different things. Some bands (e.g. The Strokes, Rainer Maria, T. Rex) only play one song over and over again. At least some bands are willing to admit that:
"okay, this song is either take it or leave it or clampdown. you have to guess."
"okay, this song is either take it or leave it or clampdown. you have to guess."
LINK: I think OGIW and I had a conversation that went something like this:
OGIW: Oh... Wilco has a new album coming out soon.
Me: So that means it'll actually be out, what, two years from now?
score one for me
OGIW: Oh... Wilco has a new album coming out soon.
Me: So that means it'll actually be out, what, two years from now?
score one for me
I'M FLATTERED, REALLY: That Ben Domenech linked to me, though I'd be more flattered if he saw that I was arguing the devil's advocate position, which I ultimately rejected.
Then again, maybe he doesn't think so, but then it's a little unclear why I'm linked as "the offensive arguments" (Maybe he was just flattering your argumentative skills --ed. Maybe you should go back where you came from; I steal someone else's schtick)
Then again, maybe he doesn't think so, but then it's a little unclear why I'm linked as "the offensive arguments" (Maybe he was just flattering your argumentative skills --ed. Maybe you should go back where you came from; I steal someone else's schtick)
QUOTE: Something to incite OGIW to reply:
""Elliot Spitzer, Senator James Jeffords, and others who make extravagant claims about the Bush new-source rule change never mention the complication that actual trends in air pollution are so inconveniently positive. True, trends might be even more positive had the Clinton-written rule remained in effect. Clinton's version of the rule was a good job and could have been left to stand; Browner, a very level-headed and reasonable person, put an awful lot of work into her rule and wanted it to be fair to utilities. (Power companies exaggerate the costs of new-source compliance just as enviros exaggerate the degree of emissions.) But the worst-case scenario for Bush's rule is that it will slow the future rate of pollution decline--which hardly sounds like the undoing of 30 years of clean-air policy, does it?
Finally, the Times Magazine story ignores or buries the really inconvenient complication that the Bush White House has taken some steps to make air pollution regulation more strict. Bush has put into force three powerful new pollution-reduction rules, one written by Browner and the others composed under Bush. One new rule mandates that diesel engines of trucks and buses be much cleaner; a second new rule mandates that "off road" power plants such as outboard motors and construction-machine engines be much cleaner; a third requires refineries to reduce the inherent pollution content of diesel fuel, this last rule enacted over the howls of Bush's core constituency, the oil boys. Taken together, these three new rules are the most important anti-pollution initiative since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendments that cracked down on acid rain. And because studies show that diesel fumes are bad for public health, Bush's new rules should produce at least as much public-health gain as the strictest interpretation of the new-source standard. Yet not a word of this in the Times Magazine article, since mention would undercut the premise."
Thoughts?
""Elliot Spitzer, Senator James Jeffords, and others who make extravagant claims about the Bush new-source rule change never mention the complication that actual trends in air pollution are so inconveniently positive. True, trends might be even more positive had the Clinton-written rule remained in effect. Clinton's version of the rule was a good job and could have been left to stand; Browner, a very level-headed and reasonable person, put an awful lot of work into her rule and wanted it to be fair to utilities. (Power companies exaggerate the costs of new-source compliance just as enviros exaggerate the degree of emissions.) But the worst-case scenario for Bush's rule is that it will slow the future rate of pollution decline--which hardly sounds like the undoing of 30 years of clean-air policy, does it?
Finally, the Times Magazine story ignores or buries the really inconvenient complication that the Bush White House has taken some steps to make air pollution regulation more strict. Bush has put into force three powerful new pollution-reduction rules, one written by Browner and the others composed under Bush. One new rule mandates that diesel engines of trucks and buses be much cleaner; a second new rule mandates that "off road" power plants such as outboard motors and construction-machine engines be much cleaner; a third requires refineries to reduce the inherent pollution content of diesel fuel, this last rule enacted over the howls of Bush's core constituency, the oil boys. Taken together, these three new rules are the most important anti-pollution initiative since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendments that cracked down on acid rain. And because studies show that diesel fumes are bad for public health, Bush's new rules should produce at least as much public-health gain as the strictest interpretation of the new-source standard. Yet not a word of this in the Times Magazine article, since mention would undercut the premise."
Thoughts?
5.4.04
KIERKEGAARD AND CHRISTIANITY: David Wayne e-mails me a quote from Harold Bloom on Kierkegaard and suggested the following topic of discussion:
"In any regard - this whole idea of "the immense difficulty of becoming a Christian in any ostensibly Christian society" intrigues me. I have long felt that the idea of America being a "Christian nation" is more problematic than helpful to the practice of true Christianity, so this quote has piqued my interest."
The first thing I'd say about Kierkegaard is that he'd consider the question of how to be a Christian in a Christian society to be a subset of the question of what it take to be a Christian as such, especially in light of our existential realities being what they are (that is to say, that we have to wake up every day and face up to the reality of the difficulties of life and our incommensurability to the various tasks before us). The part from Bloom he quotes sounds like it's from Practice in Christianity, which is one of his later works, and so a little more cynical in tone (The Sickness Unto Death is probably the best exposition of his views*).
The essential idea works something like this: when Christianity is just this thing out on its own, it tends to focus very strongly on remaining true to itself--you're really concerned about the quality of your soul when no one is around to watch it for you, and having to live idiosyncratically within society forces you to be a lot more clear on what you believe and why.
When you live in a Christian society, it's really easy to not be a Christian of the type Kierkegaard wants (that is, one whose inner life is not organized in accord with the principles of Christianity). The problem is that there are outward signs by which one can be assumed to be Christian without actually being so--regular church attendance, generous giving, and a morally upright life (as led in public, anyway). A society is necessarily going to overvalue the outward things (since it's easiest to judge those); if you're interested in being a part of that society, doing the outward things becomes a priority, and it's very easy to become sidetracked on those (as should be fairly obvious).
I think that's the crux of the argument he makes, but I'll peruse further and see if I come up with anything.
*insomuch as the psuedonym he writes under (Anti-Climacus) is the one he reserves for when he writes about what the ideal Christian should believe. There's some question in the scholarship whether or not to believe he's really representing himself when he writes as Anti-Climacus; I tend to think he is, though he enjoys the bit of intellectual distance from himself (it's essentially for the same reason that I write as Anti-Climacus and not Nick Troester, even though I tend to only write what I believe to be the case).
"In any regard - this whole idea of "the immense difficulty of becoming a Christian in any ostensibly Christian society" intrigues me. I have long felt that the idea of America being a "Christian nation" is more problematic than helpful to the practice of true Christianity, so this quote has piqued my interest."
The first thing I'd say about Kierkegaard is that he'd consider the question of how to be a Christian in a Christian society to be a subset of the question of what it take to be a Christian as such, especially in light of our existential realities being what they are (that is to say, that we have to wake up every day and face up to the reality of the difficulties of life and our incommensurability to the various tasks before us). The part from Bloom he quotes sounds like it's from Practice in Christianity, which is one of his later works, and so a little more cynical in tone (The Sickness Unto Death is probably the best exposition of his views*).
The essential idea works something like this: when Christianity is just this thing out on its own, it tends to focus very strongly on remaining true to itself--you're really concerned about the quality of your soul when no one is around to watch it for you, and having to live idiosyncratically within society forces you to be a lot more clear on what you believe and why.
When you live in a Christian society, it's really easy to not be a Christian of the type Kierkegaard wants (that is, one whose inner life is not organized in accord with the principles of Christianity). The problem is that there are outward signs by which one can be assumed to be Christian without actually being so--regular church attendance, generous giving, and a morally upright life (as led in public, anyway). A society is necessarily going to overvalue the outward things (since it's easiest to judge those); if you're interested in being a part of that society, doing the outward things becomes a priority, and it's very easy to become sidetracked on those (as should be fairly obvious).
I think that's the crux of the argument he makes, but I'll peruse further and see if I come up with anything.
*insomuch as the psuedonym he writes under (Anti-Climacus) is the one he reserves for when he writes about what the ideal Christian should believe. There's some question in the scholarship whether or not to believe he's really representing himself when he writes as Anti-Climacus; I tend to think he is, though he enjoys the bit of intellectual distance from himself (it's essentially for the same reason that I write as Anti-Climacus and not Nick Troester, even though I tend to only write what I believe to be the case).
WELL**: OxBlog (and again here has been making some hay out of the idea that Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible: Christianity, to affirm its own covenant with God, has to uproot Judaism in whole or in part (thus the Gospels have to be 'anti-semitic' on a plain-text reading*). The traditional defense of Christians, that Jesus and the disciples themselves were Jews, doesn't work, because that just reinforces the fact that Jews who get it = good, while Jews who don't get it = bad.
While I'd be interested in hearing Jollyblogger's or evangelical outpost's take on this, a brief sketch of mine: even accepting the force of the argument (that Jews who get it are good, and those who don't are definitionally bad), it's not at all clear how the decision of a Jewish person to reject the Gospels differs at all from anyone else's decision to do so. It may have been the case that Jews were closer to Jesus at the time he was around, but that was just the reality on the ground, and it'd be wrong to read anything more into that. And, granted, it's also true that the Christian covenant is supposed to supercede (though maybe not entirely replace) the Jewish covenant, but that's true of any religious belief--Judaism just happens to have been the first relevant other religion Christians encountered. I don't know that you can read too much more into it than that.
*we won't even get into how dubious I find that charge
**this is not to say that all charges of anti-semitism are specious (they aren't), or that there's never been violence against Jews under the auspices of Christianity (there has been), but rather that Christianity and Judaism are no more or less antagonistic than Christianity and any other religion, and besides, Christian criticisms do not (or should not) go to the man, but rather towards the dogmatic system.
While I'd be interested in hearing Jollyblogger's or evangelical outpost's take on this, a brief sketch of mine: even accepting the force of the argument (that Jews who get it are good, and those who don't are definitionally bad), it's not at all clear how the decision of a Jewish person to reject the Gospels differs at all from anyone else's decision to do so. It may have been the case that Jews were closer to Jesus at the time he was around, but that was just the reality on the ground, and it'd be wrong to read anything more into that. And, granted, it's also true that the Christian covenant is supposed to supercede (though maybe not entirely replace) the Jewish covenant, but that's true of any religious belief--Judaism just happens to have been the first relevant other religion Christians encountered. I don't know that you can read too much more into it than that.
*we won't even get into how dubious I find that charge
**this is not to say that all charges of anti-semitism are specious (they aren't), or that there's never been violence against Jews under the auspices of Christianity (there has been), but rather that Christianity and Judaism are no more or less antagonistic than Christianity and any other religion, and besides, Christian criticisms do not (or should not) go to the man, but rather towards the dogmatic system.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"There can be no better explanation or proof of the existence of God than the fact that I have a film career."
Kevin Smith (at a college Q-&-A session, courtesy of Futurballa)
(via About Last Night)
"There can be no better explanation or proof of the existence of God than the fact that I have a film career."
Kevin Smith (at a college Q-&-A session, courtesy of Futurballa)
(via About Last Night)
3.4.04
WELL: So here's a question that came up in this evening's conversation with OGIW (one of those five-minute ones that ends up going five hours (actually maybe only four or so)) about which I have a position but no general sense of what people think:
is it possible to predict what the economy will be like in 15 years?
is it possible to predict what the economy will be like in 15 years?
LINK: Jollyblogger has some interesting commentary on the discussion of marriage bouncing around between evangelical outpost and Diotima:
"As a pastor I often find myself dealing with people who have "existing values and ethical frameworks" who are often seeking to "change the location in which they act out those values." Francis Schaeffer was right when he said that the highest values of our time are personal peace and affluence. Husbands and wives become means to attaining personal peace and affluence. When a spouse (subjectively) begins to believe that their spouse is disturbing the peace, they construct all kinds of arguments as to why they must flee the current situation.
This is why I often get the feeling when I am counseling someone that we are ships passing in the night. I am trying to change the way they look at marriage, but they are filtering my counsel through their "existing values and ethical frameworks.""
The rest of the blog is pretty good too, so definitely worth checking out.
"As a pastor I often find myself dealing with people who have "existing values and ethical frameworks" who are often seeking to "change the location in which they act out those values." Francis Schaeffer was right when he said that the highest values of our time are personal peace and affluence. Husbands and wives become means to attaining personal peace and affluence. When a spouse (subjectively) begins to believe that their spouse is disturbing the peace, they construct all kinds of arguments as to why they must flee the current situation.
This is why I often get the feeling when I am counseling someone that we are ships passing in the night. I am trying to change the way they look at marriage, but they are filtering my counsel through their "existing values and ethical frameworks.""
The rest of the blog is pretty good too, so definitely worth checking out.
2.4.04
WELL: It occurs to me that there's something odd in an argument like this:
"Here's what I would like those very people to tell me: What do you expect to happen if the coalition forces just up and left Iraq right now? Don't bother straining yourself thinking about it; I know it's hard for you to see past your own needs. I'll tell you what will happen.
Iraq would revert back to a rogue nation. Any Iraqis who worked for or sided with the coalition will be killed. Possibly tortured, first. Their families will be killed. The schools and hospitals that have been built in the past year will become storage rooms for weapons and meeting places for terrorists. The women who are enjoying their new found freedom to have careers and come out from under their veils will once again be sentenced to house duty; that is, staying home, staying veiled, being treated as as an object of disdain by men more powerful than them. The children who were finally learning something besides the doctrines of Saddam will have their new textbooks ripped from them. The country once again will be ruled by fear and wracked with violence. In other words, Iraq will go back to being what it was in March of 2003: A place of terror, corruption, torture, death and oppression where only those who are beholden to evilness will rule. All hopes of democracy and freedom will be crushed. Those dreams of a constitution, good schools, a bright future - they will all be shot down. It will be as if we gave them hope and then pulled it out from under them."
Mostly because it requires believing the following two things: 1. Iraqis are completely capable of self-government (as soon as this year's elections) but 2. Were it not for our presence, things would go to hell in a handbasket. Now, were I one of those lefty-types, I'd say this qualified as a contradiction (at best): you want us to believe Iraqis are simultaneously angels and devils, whichever you find to be more convenient at the moment.
(of course, arguing this has an unfortunate entailment for pro-democracy leftists, because you're contending that if democracy happens and the US stays, it was only the threat of violence that scared them straight; if the US goes and democracy fails, then it just goes to show the entire idea of bringing democracy to them was fatally flawed. Either version requires believing that democracy can't happen in a state that doesn't already have it unless there's 100% support.)
The response is a story about elites and masses. The people who are naturally disposed to have power in a between-governments Iraq are the people who have an interest in keeping any other form of government from taking power. The masses are either marginalized out of the process or hedging their bets by supporting the elites (the US will forgive people who have seen the light, should things go America's way; Iraqi warlords will not be so forgiving). Consequently, it's not contradictory to believe that there are relevant contingents in the population which are 'good' and 'bad' --it should be expected.
"Here's what I would like those very people to tell me: What do you expect to happen if the coalition forces just up and left Iraq right now? Don't bother straining yourself thinking about it; I know it's hard for you to see past your own needs. I'll tell you what will happen.
Iraq would revert back to a rogue nation. Any Iraqis who worked for or sided with the coalition will be killed. Possibly tortured, first. Their families will be killed. The schools and hospitals that have been built in the past year will become storage rooms for weapons and meeting places for terrorists. The women who are enjoying their new found freedom to have careers and come out from under their veils will once again be sentenced to house duty; that is, staying home, staying veiled, being treated as as an object of disdain by men more powerful than them. The children who were finally learning something besides the doctrines of Saddam will have their new textbooks ripped from them. The country once again will be ruled by fear and wracked with violence. In other words, Iraq will go back to being what it was in March of 2003: A place of terror, corruption, torture, death and oppression where only those who are beholden to evilness will rule. All hopes of democracy and freedom will be crushed. Those dreams of a constitution, good schools, a bright future - they will all be shot down. It will be as if we gave them hope and then pulled it out from under them."
Mostly because it requires believing the following two things: 1. Iraqis are completely capable of self-government (as soon as this year's elections) but 2. Were it not for our presence, things would go to hell in a handbasket. Now, were I one of those lefty-types, I'd say this qualified as a contradiction (at best): you want us to believe Iraqis are simultaneously angels and devils, whichever you find to be more convenient at the moment.
(of course, arguing this has an unfortunate entailment for pro-democracy leftists, because you're contending that if democracy happens and the US stays, it was only the threat of violence that scared them straight; if the US goes and democracy fails, then it just goes to show the entire idea of bringing democracy to them was fatally flawed. Either version requires believing that democracy can't happen in a state that doesn't already have it unless there's 100% support.)
The response is a story about elites and masses. The people who are naturally disposed to have power in a between-governments Iraq are the people who have an interest in keeping any other form of government from taking power. The masses are either marginalized out of the process or hedging their bets by supporting the elites (the US will forgive people who have seen the light, should things go America's way; Iraqi warlords will not be so forgiving). Consequently, it's not contradictory to believe that there are relevant contingents in the population which are 'good' and 'bad' --it should be expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)