I have a right to think what I want

I watched CNN's "Hardball" for a bit tonight, only to observe the following interaction take place. Chris Matthews (the host) and a Republican spokesman, were discussing John Kerry's comments yesterday, which the Bush administration is doing everything it can to paint as directed towards our troops. Matthews was arguing that once he saw Kerry's comments in context, it became clear that they were criticisms of the President, not our troops. It's hard for me to recount exactly what happened next, but when the Republican continued to insist that Kerry was criticizing the troops, and Matthews responded by arguing that the Republican was wrong about the intention of Kerry's comments, the Republican responded by saying, first, that no one could ever know what Kerry's intentions were, and, second, that he has a right to think what he wants about Kerry's comments.

If philosophy has any practical value at all, it is in getting people to see that these two comments by the Republican are completely confused. But this is isn't the sort of thing that comes up in most philosophy classes, and it certainly isn't going to come up in the intro. class I'm currently teaching. And that reveals something deeply wrong with the way philosophy is usually taught.

The Problem with the "Liberal" Media

How about their inability to use the words "true" and "false"?

In today's NY Times, in an article about Kerry's relatively heated recent response to criticisms from the administration, the following explanation was offered:

"Part of Mr. Kerry’s outrage may arise from memories of 2004, when a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth raised allegations, never substantiated, that he had exaggerated his wartime exploits."

Why in the world can't the NY Times say that these allegations were false, instead of saying only that they were "never substantiated"?

As long as we find ourselves incapable of sincerely judging things true & false, good & bad, I think we'll always be playing catch-up to the conservatives. I mean, in a separate article, the NY Times itself noted that the allegations were "riddled with inconsistencies". And, hate to have to point out the obvious, something that is inconsistent, something that contradicts itself, is necessarily false.

Apache

The NY Times has a sweet article about the Incredible Bongo Band's "Apache":

Will Hermes' NY Times article on "Apache"

And Oliver Wang has some interesting comments on Hermes' article, as well as a link to a previous post on different versions of "Apache":

Oliver Wang's Soul Sides comments

(If you read the comments on Oliver Wang's post, you'll see a comment by yours truly. I had to restrain myself from mentioning that I have a sealed copy of the original pressing of the "Bongo Rock" LP. It was the ultimate score. I bought it 10 years ago for 80 cents, by going through boxes of records that hadn't yet been priced at the warehouse for a chain of used book stores. I've always thought that I'll be able to bribe Grandmaster Flash to DJ at my wedding by offering him my sealed copy of "Bongo Rock", as well as my "Impeach the President" 45. Along with lots of money, of course.)

And, of course, there's YouTube's contributions to our collective fascination with "Apache":

Pre-Ironic "Apache" Video

Post-Ironic "Apache" Video

Records I've Listened To

Strange Magic: The Best of Electric Light Orchestra (2 Discs), Electric Light Orchestra (1995): For years and years I've come across ELO records at Salvation Army and at used bookstores, but never once was I even slightly inclined to check them out. Not because I already knew what they sounded like; to be honest, I don't even think I had much of an idea of what I *thought* they sounded like. But I just assumed that they were unlistenable. So, I was immensely surprised recently when, first, my friend Jon played some of their songs on a party mix he put together for our 10th year college reunion and I liked them, and, second, "Mr. Blue Sky" was suggested by more than one person as a good song to play at a friend's wedding. So, the other day I got this two disc comp at the library and even on a first listen I've already heard several other songs that sound pretty damn good. (In case you were wondering: as Jimmie Rodgers put it, this story has no moral.) (11/06)

Gershwin Plays Gershwin: The Piano Rolls, George Gershwin (1993): I don't know which is weirder, ontologically speaking, piano rolls or audio recordings. How about audio recordings of piano rolls? What, exactly, am I listening to? Am I listening to George Gershwin play the piano? Hell if I know. All I know is that this is a very pleasant recording of some pretty sparse piano versions of some of Gershwin's hits, good enough for me to want to get Volume Two. I've been on a bit of a Gershwin kick for the past year or so, and I think I'll listen to these versions quite a bit, probably not as much as some of my favorite vocal or more heavily orchestrated versions, but probably more than most of the other jazz piano versions I have. We'll see. (10/06)

SPAM Emails

Jay recently brought my attention to the rather interesting names, and text, that the SPAM emails we've been flooded with lately contain. I hadn't noticed. But check out the two rather exciting examples I've since collected.

Example 1:

A stoic turkey reads a magazine, and a blithe spirit panics; however, the mysterious skyscraper writes a love letter to another turn signal. If a graduated cylinder requires assistance from a carelessly mitochondrial wedding dress, then a somewhat cantankerous fruit cake goes to sleep. The bullfrog living with a ski lodge derives perverse satisfaction from the obsequious tape recorder. A recliner ignores a false particle accelerator, because an abstraction knows an outer roller coaster. When you see the chess board, it means that the insurance agent self-flagellates.

Example 2:

From Hercule Cordelia:

how patterns are science, and learning theory, applications. your words, in real world in between sips of a martini. your boss told you, and how to exploit.
you want to learn the matter--why to use them, about inheritance. might your brain works. using so that you can spend up a creek in a way that won't.

the latest research in sounds, how the Factory a book, you want format designed for the way of patterns with others.

the same software you want to learn in a way that lets you design the next time you're on the "Trading Spaces" show. want to see how neurobiology, cognitive
design problems texts. if you've read (and impress cocktail party guests) you're not advantage matter.

Head First Design Patterns reinvent the wheel sounds, how the Factory a design paddle pattern. when to use them, how up a creek without a book, you want Facade, Proxy, and Factory.

your brain works. using brain in a way that sticks. environment. in other NOT to use them). his stunningly clever use of Command, "secret language" to learn how those applications. You reinvent the wheel in their native.

your want is so often misunderstood, you want to learn why everything, and how to exploit up a creek without will. load patterns into your same software. speaking the language to know built-in pattern. with Head First somewhere in the world
the same software.

to know what to expect--a visually-rich a book, you want of Design Patterns in a way that won't. patterns with others texts. if you've read a built-in pattern, you'll avoid the patterns that pattern your time...something put you to sleep! we think the same problems.

how to exploit sounds, how the Factory format designed for the way Decorator is speaking the language you get to take words, in real world. you want the next time you're in the real relationship. deep understanding of why else. something more
in struggling with academic and experience of others. Patterns--the lessons, in a way that makes you want to learn about something more fun. about inheritance might

reinvent the wheel

Organic Farm

Did I tell you I went to an organic farm a couple of weeks ago? More about it tomorrow.

Deluxe Twinkies and Ding Dongs

My Mom made these for a party I hosted a couple of weeks ago.

My Attitude Toward Theory in the Humanities

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, October 2006

Elvis Lives

Berkeley, October 2006

Are Clothes Modern?

I just found the photo above of an installation in Bernard Rudofsky's 1944-45 MOMA exhibit, "Are Clothes Modern?". The photo was in Leila W. Kinney's article, "Fashion and Fabrication in Modern Architecture" (available on JSTOR). Here's what she has to say about the photo:

"Installation view of 'Are Clothes Modern?' exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art organized by Bernard Rudofsky, 28 November 1944 to 4 March 1945. Analytical diagram of the modern business ensemble, with twenty-four pockets and seventy buttons. Demonstrating the decorative aspects of modern clothing, Rudofsky's label states: 'What glass beads are to the savage, buttons and pockets are to the civilized.'"

A Very Effective Rhetorical Strategy

PJ just drew my attention to the following "debate" between the makers of the 9/11 conspiracy "documentary" "Loose Change" and the editors of a new Popular Mechanics book that debunks the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. I tried watching "Loose Change" once, but found the sophistry of the whole thing unbearable after a while, so I didn't watch all of it. I did, however, read all of the Popular Mechanics article version of their debunking, mainly because I found it cathartic after trying unsuccessfully to reason a close friend of mine out of his own committment to various 9/11 conspiracy theories. I thought the Popular Mechanics article was quite good. It reminded me of an earlier article in Discover magazine, debunking the most common criticisms of evolutionary theory. (I just did a quick web search for that Discover article but couldn't find it. If anyone knows where it is, please let me know.) In both cases, I thought the magazines did a great public service by patiently going through how experts respond to conspiracy theorists/creationists.

Anyway, the most interesting moment in the "debate" linked to above is the following comment by one of the "Loose Change" film-makers:

"We’re just trying to tell people to go out and research for themselves."

This is an incredibly powerful rhetorical strategy, and conspiracy bluffs are not the only ones who understand its power. I've noticed that two other groups say this same same sort of thing to great effect:

(1) Creationists/intelligent designers
(2) Conservatives

Creationists use it as a burden-shifting move, in order to deflect the criticism that their view is unscientific and make it seem like they're just trying to "explore the options for themselves". Conservatives use it to undermine any scientific studies that might suggest we shouldn't adopt their public policies: think of their attitudes towards the expert consensus on global warming, for instance, or their response to the Lancet study last week reporting 655,000 additional deaths in Iraq because of our occupation.

The mistake, in all three cases ("Loose Change", creationists, conservatives), is to think that the type of research required is something just anyone can go out and do for themselves--with just a little elbow-grease, as it were. But in all three cases, in order to be in a position to research the topic, you've got to have a graduate degree in the relevant area. The kind of knowledge in question is so specialized that it's just a fantasy to think that non-experts have anything to say about it.

Taking an authority's word for it is (or once was) deeply un-American, and finding this rhetoric powerful obviously depends upon sharing a sense that it's always better to look and see for yourself, but this is a clear case in which we need to distinguish two very different senses of "authority":

(i) political authority
(ii) scientific authority

I agree with everyone else that we shouldn't take a political authority's word for things. But I think we should take a scientific authority's word for things that fall within his/her area of expertise; the success of science partly depends upon doing so, actually.

It's amazing how hard it is for people to accept that we should take a scientific authority's word for things. More on this later.

Found Photograph

Meredith found this photograph, taken by a relative of hers.

Life...

...is a very lonely place. Oh well, what're you going to do? Boycott it?

Art

I don't know what, exactly, to call these fake index entries painted around the U of C, but I do know that they're the single best addition to the U of C campus in a while. I love them! They tread a fine line between too esoteric to make any sense, and too obvious to be interesting. They're accessibly witty.

Bonfire

After years of wishing that my camera could take long exposure photos, I just discovered that it can.

If you're wondering why the photos above aren't framed very well, it's because the view finder LCD screen was COMPLETELY black when I took these 15 second exposures.

Terrible Water

I was back at the U of C this past weekend. It's good to see that the spirit of the place hasn't changed.

Poochie's Parking

The thing about going to Poochie's is that if you're a true regular, you don't park in one of the spots in their parking lot. You just pull right up to the door and park your car there.

Survey

I think it's time for an informal survey. How many people think the following quotation is true?

"The modern period of our intellectual history begins with the discovery that the world text is (at least partly) written by ourselves."

(Adapted from Sabina Lovibond, "Realism and Imagination in Ethics", p. 113)

Note: what I'm wondering is if you think that it is true to say that the world text is (at least partly) written by ourselves. I'm not interested in any sort of historical claim. And, I take it, Lovibond does NOT mean to be drawing attention to obvious senses in which how the world is depends upon us: e.g., that things we build, etc., change how the world is. Lovibond's comment, in context, is clearly meant to imply that how the world is depends, in part, on how we understand it.

Either you're with us or against us

If I had to choose I false dilemma that I could stand behind, it would be the following:

Either you're for the Enlightenment, and have faith in the human capacity of reason, or you're an Abecedarian.

From Wikipedia:

Abecedarians were a 16th century German sect of Anabaptists who affected an absolute disdain for all human knowledge, contending that God would enlighten his elect from within themselves, giving them knowledge of necessary truths by visions and ecstasies, with which human learning would interfere.

They rejected every other means of instruction, and claimed that to be saved one must even be ignorant of the first letters of the alphabet; whence their name, A-B-C-darians. They also considered the study of theology as a species of idolatry, and regarded learned men who did any preaching as falsifiers of God's word.

Nicholas Storch led this sect, preaching that the teaching of the Holy Spirit as all that was necessary. Andreas Karlstadt adopted these views, abandoned his title of doctor and became a street porter.

Wedding Songs

A good friend of mine is getting married soon. I'm going to DJ the wedding. I asked him, and four other friends, to suggest songs to play. They suggested 521 different songs, over 24 hours of music. Here's the overlap in their suggestions:

2 Votes:

REM: Don't Go Back to Rockville
New Order: Bizarre Love Triangle
Talking Heads: Book I Read
Cure: Just Like Heaven
Cure: Love Cats
Pulp: Common People
Daft Punk: Digital Love
Pulp: Disco 2000
Depeche Mode: Dreaming of Me
David Bowie: Golden Years
Beach Boys: Good Vibrations
Gang of Four: I Love a Man in Uniform
Prince: Kiss
Talking Heads: Life During Wartime
Cardigans: Lovefool
Bill Withers: Lovely Day
Andrea True Connection: More, More, More
Faces: Ooh La La
Air: Playground Love
REM: Pretty Persuasion
Hall & Oates: Private Eyes
Stevie Wonder: Superstition
New Order: Temptation
Talking Heads: The Girls Want to be with the Girls
Smiths: This Charming Man
Prince: When Doves Cry
Beck: Where It's At
Beastie Boys: So What'cha Want
Billy Idol: Dancing With Myself
Cure: Boys Don't Cry
Le Tigre/DFA: Deceptacon (DFA Remix)
Digital Underground: Humpty Dance
Electric Light Orchestra: Mr. Blue Sky
Elvis Costello: The Angels Want to Wear My Red Shoes
Gilbert O'Sullivan: Alone Again (Naturally)
Morrisey: You're the One for Me, Fatty
Orange Juice Jones: Rip It Up
Pet Shop Boys: West End Girls
Scissor Sisters: Comfortably Numb

3 Votes:

David Bowie: Queen Bitch
Shuggie Otis: Strawberry Letter 23

4 Votes:

Depeche Mode: Just Can't Have Enough

Defeasible Generalization

"Stubb then in a plain, business-like, but still half humorous manner, cursed Pip officially; and that done, unofficially gave him much wholesome advice. The substance was, Never jump from a boat, Pip, except--but all the rest was indefinite, as the soundest advice ever is. Now, in general, Stick to the boat, is your true motto in whaling; but cases will sometimes happen when Leap from the boat, is still better."

From Moby Dick, Chap. 93: The Castaway