to bring home the troops.
Here is her website: http://www.barbaraboxer.com
[And here is the email form.]
Dear Sarah,
Urge President Bush to stop the Iraq escalation!
In just 9 hours, President Bush will stand before Congress and the American people to deliver his State of the Union address and defend his unwise plan to deploy over 20,000 new American troops to Iraq.
Help me stand up to the President by urging him to listen to the American people and turn away from this unwise escalation of the war. Email President Bush before his speech tonight and ask him to listen to reason.
Last November, the American people went into the voting booth and said loud and clear that they wanted a change of course in Iraq. Instead, President Bush ignored the public and the advice of senior military officials by proposing to escalate our commitment in Iraq.
It is so crucial that we all keep up the pressure to start bringing our troops home so the Iraqis know that Iraq is their country, we are not occupiers, and that they must defend themselves. It is also crucial that we keep up the pressure for a political and diplomatic solution to this travesty -- to bring together all of the countries in the region with the coalition President Bush says he has, in order to meet and hammer out the details for bringing about a peaceful Iraq. Instead, the Bush Administration is only offering a military escalation, which means more and more killing, leaving our sons and daughters in the middle of a full-blown civil war.
Enough is enough. Forward an email to President Bush before tonight's State of the Union address. Tell him that America wants our troops to start coming home.
Just this past weekend, 27 American troops lost their lives in Iraq -- one of the deadliest two-day periods for U.S. forces since we first invaded Iraq 4 years ago. Then on Monday, more than 100 Iraqis were killed in car bombing attacks in Baghdad and Khalis. This nonstop violence is sickening, and we must do everything we can to end it.
It is no wonder that recent polls show that 65 percent of the American people oppose the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq. They know that President Bush isn't offering a solution; he's just putting more young Americans in harm's way without taking any serious steps to end the conflict.
President Bush's escalation plan also faces bipartisan opposition in Congress. On Monday, Senator John Warner -- a senior Republican and respected military expert -- proposed a resolution opposing the Bush troop increase. It could not be more clear that President Bush is standing alone -- against even his own party -- in trying to escalate this conflict.
Already, over 17,000 people have emailed President Bush through our PAC for a Change website, urging him to listen to reason and turn away from this foolhardy policy. It is critical that we double this number in the last hours before his speech tonight.
Email President Bush right now, and let him know that it's time for him to listen to the American people and end the war in Iraq.
Thank you for your help to change course and start bringing our brave men and women home so the Iraqis can take responsibility for their own country.
In Friendship,
Barbara Boxer
[Ripped off entirely from my friend Sarah.]
January 23, 2007
January 21, 2007
To split yourself into two / is just the most radical thing you can do
Tomorrow is the thirty-fourth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and that means it's Blog for choice day. This year's theme is the rather dull `Why I am pro-choice'. Dull because my reasons are themselves rather dull and dryly philosophical -- (1) there are no good reasons to think a foetus has a right to life (ie, is a person), and (2) even if it did have such a right to life, there is no reason to think that right supersedes a woman's right to bodily autonomy and integrity.
This is, essentially, the position taken in Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous essay `A defense of abortion'. I don't agree with Jarvis Thomson entirely, though, because she seems to assert that we never have any obligations to aid others. By contrast, I think there's intuitive appeal to Peter Singer's principle that we have obligations to make sacrifices to aid others when the sacrifice is not of `comparable moral significance' (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quotation). Cashing out that phrase is tough, but I think that rights of bodily autonomy and integrity are of comparable moral significance with the right to life.
Let me open the comments thread to you all: Why are you pro-choice?
NB I'd like to reserve substantive comments in this thread for pro-choicers only. If you're opposed to abortion and would like to discuss my reasons or anyone else's, you're welcome to email me or put a link to a post on your own blog in the comments below.
This is, essentially, the position taken in Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous essay `A defense of abortion'. I don't agree with Jarvis Thomson entirely, though, because she seems to assert that we never have any obligations to aid others. By contrast, I think there's intuitive appeal to Peter Singer's principle that we have obligations to make sacrifices to aid others when the sacrifice is not of `comparable moral significance' (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quotation). Cashing out that phrase is tough, but I think that rights of bodily autonomy and integrity are of comparable moral significance with the right to life.
Let me open the comments thread to you all: Why are you pro-choice?
NB I'd like to reserve substantive comments in this thread for pro-choicers only. If you're opposed to abortion and would like to discuss my reasons or anyone else's, you're welcome to email me or put a link to a post on your own blog in the comments below.
January 20, 2007
The Gini coefficient
The Gini coefficient is a measure of the distribution of wealth within a population. The idea is simple: line up the entire population, with the poorest person on the left end and the richest person on the right. As you go down the line, take the total income of everyone to the left (so the first person has just their own income counted, the last person has everyone's income counted). This plots a curve that kind of swoops up from the lower-left corner to the upper-right. Now measure the area between this curve and the straight line from the lower-left corner to the upper-right, and divide that by the triangular area under the straight line. This gives you a ratio between the actual distribution of wealth and the perfectly equal distribution of wealth. Multiply that ratio by 100, and you have the Gini coefficient.
Since a larger ratio means there's more of a gap between reality and the perfectly equal distribution, a coefficient of 0 means perfect equality (everyone's income is exactly the same), while a coefficient of 100 means perfect inequality (one person gets all the money). Here is an alphabetical list of countries and their Gini coefficients, measured in various years.
According to this list, in 2004, the Gini coefficient for the US was 45. Here's a list of the other countries whose most recent Gini coefficient calculation, according to this list, was between 40 and 50: Armenia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, PRC, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Those are our peers. The list of countries with a lower Gini coefficient (remember, lower means more egalitarian) is way too long to list here. But here's a list of countries those coefficients are between 30 and 40: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, the UK, Vietnam, and Yemen. These are the countries whose incomes are distributed somewhat more equally than in the US.
Since a larger ratio means there's more of a gap between reality and the perfectly equal distribution, a coefficient of 0 means perfect equality (everyone's income is exactly the same), while a coefficient of 100 means perfect inequality (one person gets all the money). Here is an alphabetical list of countries and their Gini coefficients, measured in various years.
According to this list, in 2004, the Gini coefficient for the US was 45. Here's a list of the other countries whose most recent Gini coefficient calculation, according to this list, was between 40 and 50: Armenia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, PRC, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Those are our peers. The list of countries with a lower Gini coefficient (remember, lower means more egalitarian) is way too long to list here. But here's a list of countries those coefficients are between 30 and 40: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, the UK, Vietnam, and Yemen. These are the countries whose incomes are distributed somewhat more equally than in the US.
Review of Pan's labyrinth
Guillermo del Toro is best well-known in the US as the screenwriter and director of Hellboy, but in the right circles he is much more renowned for The devil's backbone and Cronos. If you're not familiar with either of these, I recommend hunting down some copies before seeing Pan's labyrinth.
Del Toro has called Pan's labyrinth a `sequal in spirit' to The devil's backbone, and the two films share a number of thematic elements. Both take place in Spain towards the end of the Civil War, and have, as protagonist, children of about ten years old whose lives have been severely disrupted by that war. Both live solidly within the Spanish literary genre of magical realism, with two distinct but parallel and sympathetic plotlines. Indeed, it is magical realism that makes these two films so distinctive, and makes Pan's labyrinth so artistically successful.
===== Very, very small spoilers below the fold =====
Briefly, Pan's labyrinth tells the story of Ofelia, a Spanish girl whose father has been killed in the Spanish Civil War. The war is ending, and her mother has become pregnant by a captain in Franco's army. At the beginning of the film, Ofelia and her mother are brought out from the city to an old mill, which is being used as a base for the rebel-clearing mission of the captain. Ofelia discovers an rotting stone labyrinth just inside the forest, and an ancient faun (played by the incredibly talented Doug Jones), the mime who played Abe Sapien in Hellboy and the lead Gentleman in the Buffy episode `Hush') in the centre tells her that she is the reincarnated daughter of the king of the Underworld. To return to the Underworld (`where there is no suffering or death'), she must complete three tasks, with the help of the faun's pet faeries and a magical book.
Meanwhile, the Civil War rages on in the microcosm of the mill household. Giving a more adequate summary of the realist plotline without major spoilers is difficult, so I will just say that it is a mistake, as many of the reviewers on IMDb (both positive and negative) do, to focus more or less exclusively on the supernatural plotline. Magical realism is built on the way the realist and supernatural are used to comment on each other, and you will not be able to understand the film without grasping that basic premise. I will, say, however, that the realist plotline is fairly standard: the captain is almost a two-dimensional villain (as befits a fairy tale), sadistic and misogynist and obsessed with his patrimony; there are Republican sympathisers right under his nose; Ofelia's mother's pregnancy takes a turn for the worst; the main characters are slowly but inevitably isolated; and so on.
===== Spoilers end =====
Del Toro's greatest skill as a storyteller (and he has several; his visual aesthetic, for one, is absolutely breathtaking) lies in his subtle and sophisticated use of allusion, reference, and reflection, and he makes full use of the complex structure of magical realism to this end. Too often `updated' or `modernised' fairy tales collapse under their own weight, and turn into either disappointing action movies (Terry Gilliam's Brother's Grimm) or cheesy and painfully insipid pieces of crap (anything M Night Shyamalan has ever touched). Pan's labyrinth avoids these pitfalls by focussing, not on the fantastic characters and settings, but on the basic iconic elements of fairy tales, in both the supernatural and realist plotlines: items of power, rules and warnings of danger, deception and trust, the powerless facing down the powerful. Don't misunderstand me, some of the most tour de force sequences of the film are encounters with fantastic characters in fantastic settings, but the realist side of the film means it cannot be built around these encounters, and thereby avoids going over the top.
For all its praise, Pan's labyrinth is not quite del Toro's masterpiece. All the characters are, ultimately, rather flat archetypes, and nothing that transpires is ever really all that surprising. It's far from formulaic, but I suspect the rave American reviews have more to do with the novelty of magical realism than any actual innovation on del Toro's part (besides putting magical realism on the screen; I can't think of another film, besides The devil's backbone, that's really done this). Pan's labyrinth is highly recommended, but I'm going to wait another five or ten years before I label del Toro a true genius; at only 42, he still needs some time to mature completely, especially as a writer.
One final note: While undoubtedly a fairy tale, Pan's labyrinth is not for young children. This is a dark and extremely disturbing tale, on the order of, say, something by David Cronenberg. (Though obviously very different in most other respects.) The somber atmosphere settles in from the first frame, and only becomes more and more oppressive -- I don't think there's a single moment where anyone says or does anything that's in any way amusing or light-hearted. It didn't give me nightmares, but I believe it would for anyone younger than about 14.
Del Toro has called Pan's labyrinth a `sequal in spirit' to The devil's backbone, and the two films share a number of thematic elements. Both take place in Spain towards the end of the Civil War, and have, as protagonist, children of about ten years old whose lives have been severely disrupted by that war. Both live solidly within the Spanish literary genre of magical realism, with two distinct but parallel and sympathetic plotlines. Indeed, it is magical realism that makes these two films so distinctive, and makes Pan's labyrinth so artistically successful.
===== Very, very small spoilers below the fold =====
Briefly, Pan's labyrinth tells the story of Ofelia, a Spanish girl whose father has been killed in the Spanish Civil War. The war is ending, and her mother has become pregnant by a captain in Franco's army. At the beginning of the film, Ofelia and her mother are brought out from the city to an old mill, which is being used as a base for the rebel-clearing mission of the captain. Ofelia discovers an rotting stone labyrinth just inside the forest, and an ancient faun (played by the incredibly talented Doug Jones), the mime who played Abe Sapien in Hellboy and the lead Gentleman in the Buffy episode `Hush') in the centre tells her that she is the reincarnated daughter of the king of the Underworld. To return to the Underworld (`where there is no suffering or death'), she must complete three tasks, with the help of the faun's pet faeries and a magical book.
Meanwhile, the Civil War rages on in the microcosm of the mill household. Giving a more adequate summary of the realist plotline without major spoilers is difficult, so I will just say that it is a mistake, as many of the reviewers on IMDb (both positive and negative) do, to focus more or less exclusively on the supernatural plotline. Magical realism is built on the way the realist and supernatural are used to comment on each other, and you will not be able to understand the film without grasping that basic premise. I will, say, however, that the realist plotline is fairly standard: the captain is almost a two-dimensional villain (as befits a fairy tale), sadistic and misogynist and obsessed with his patrimony; there are Republican sympathisers right under his nose; Ofelia's mother's pregnancy takes a turn for the worst; the main characters are slowly but inevitably isolated; and so on.
===== Spoilers end =====
Del Toro's greatest skill as a storyteller (and he has several; his visual aesthetic, for one, is absolutely breathtaking) lies in his subtle and sophisticated use of allusion, reference, and reflection, and he makes full use of the complex structure of magical realism to this end. Too often `updated' or `modernised' fairy tales collapse under their own weight, and turn into either disappointing action movies (Terry Gilliam's Brother's Grimm) or cheesy and painfully insipid pieces of crap (anything M Night Shyamalan has ever touched). Pan's labyrinth avoids these pitfalls by focussing, not on the fantastic characters and settings, but on the basic iconic elements of fairy tales, in both the supernatural and realist plotlines: items of power, rules and warnings of danger, deception and trust, the powerless facing down the powerful. Don't misunderstand me, some of the most tour de force sequences of the film are encounters with fantastic characters in fantastic settings, but the realist side of the film means it cannot be built around these encounters, and thereby avoids going over the top.
For all its praise, Pan's labyrinth is not quite del Toro's masterpiece. All the characters are, ultimately, rather flat archetypes, and nothing that transpires is ever really all that surprising. It's far from formulaic, but I suspect the rave American reviews have more to do with the novelty of magical realism than any actual innovation on del Toro's part (besides putting magical realism on the screen; I can't think of another film, besides The devil's backbone, that's really done this). Pan's labyrinth is highly recommended, but I'm going to wait another five or ten years before I label del Toro a true genius; at only 42, he still needs some time to mature completely, especially as a writer.
One final note: While undoubtedly a fairy tale, Pan's labyrinth is not for young children. This is a dark and extremely disturbing tale, on the order of, say, something by David Cronenberg. (Though obviously very different in most other respects.) The somber atmosphere settles in from the first frame, and only becomes more and more oppressive -- I don't think there's a single moment where anyone says or does anything that's in any way amusing or light-hearted. It didn't give me nightmares, but I believe it would for anyone younger than about 14.
One of the finest legal minds of the day. Or something.
Attorney General Gonzales yesterday: `There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away.'
Okay, I suppose he's right in at least one sense. According to Article One, Section 9, `The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it'. The specific wording is that it's a right the state is not allowed to take away, except in certain specific cases. But, if it's a right the state is not usually allowed to take away, this would seem to imply directly that it's a right people usually have. A can't be forbidden from taking X away from B if B never ever has X in the first place.
Maybe one of your lawyerly types can explain this to me?
HT
Okay, I suppose he's right in at least one sense. According to Article One, Section 9, `The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it'. The specific wording is that it's a right the state is not allowed to take away, except in certain specific cases. But, if it's a right the state is not usually allowed to take away, this would seem to imply directly that it's a right people usually have. A can't be forbidden from taking X away from B if B never ever has X in the first place.
Maybe one of your lawyerly types can explain this to me?
HT
Short review of Marie Antoinette
Sophia Coppolla's Marie Antoinette is about the boring, vapid life of the title historical figure. This makes for a boring, vapid film.
January 18, 2007
Bill Simmons
I've written and rewritten this post a couple times because it always ends up way too long and autobiographical. Suffice to say I've never been into sports much, but Bill Simmons makes me want to learn about bit more. After reading that column I've actually considered Tivoing Phoenix Suns games.
January 17, 2007
My Roulette System
Well now, Dan comes back from vacation and steals my spot at the top of the blog! With real posts about minimum wages and such things no less! I'll put a stop to this!
In my last post about gambling I failed to really make clear what my system entails. This really didn't help anybody offer an evaluation of the system. Without further ado:
The game is Roulette*. I play the outside, which means I don't put chips directly on any numbers but play groups. In particular, the roulette board is divided into three collumns. Betting successfully on a collumn pays 3-to-1. You can also bet on half the field(the two zeros are excluded from both the collumns and the evens/odds and red/black) with a pay rate of 2-to-1.
When I play, I bet two equal stacks of chips, one on each of two collumns. This means if I win I receive three stacks of chips back, covering my bet and giving me the same payout as if I had bet half the board. On the one hand this gives me better odds than betting red/black/odd/even as I'm covering slightly less than 2/3 of the board. It also means if I lose I lose twice as much.
Now, when I do lose I double down, placing double the original bet on the same collumns. If I lose again the bet is redoubled and again placed on the same collumns. This process is repeated until one of my two collumns wins, bringing me all the money that I'd lost in that stretch and one stack the size of the original bet. If I win on a particular spin, I move my bets to the other two collumns. I admit that this doesn't effect my odds of winning, but at the very least it gives me something to do and assuages that nagging feeling that it *has* to be more likely to hit on the other two collumns after a string of hits on one of them. I know, not true, but it sure makes sense and if it doesn't hurt my odds than it really doesn't matter.
There are obvious problems with this which were entailed in the Gambler's Falacy and Martingale System pages linked in the previous post. A very long string of losses is not impossible, even if it may be unlikely. Given the doubling of bets, a sufficiently long string of losses would bankrupt the player eventually.
The difference I think between my system and the Martingale system it that the latter seems to assume, based on the Wikipedia page, that the odds of success on a given bet are slightly less than 50%. That being the case it makes sense that over time you would eventually lose all your money. But my system has odds in my favor in execess of 60%. This in particular is where I need help from math inclined folks. Do the higher odds of success in my model make it viable where the Martingale system is not? It is granted that a player using my system needs a bank to draw from far in excess of the minimum bet they are using (I figure that a bank of $400-$500 for a table with a $15 minimum bet is sufficiently "safe"). It is also granted that given limited funds this system could be beated by a bad streak of luck, say hitting the same collumn and/or the zeros four or five times in a row. But I do think that the odds of such a streak are pretty poor and represent probably the best odds you can get in a casino.
Any thoughts?
*It should be noted at the outset that I always play the table with the lowest minimum bet and I *always* bet the minimum, except as specified in the explanation.
In my last post about gambling I failed to really make clear what my system entails. This really didn't help anybody offer an evaluation of the system. Without further ado:
The game is Roulette*. I play the outside, which means I don't put chips directly on any numbers but play groups. In particular, the roulette board is divided into three collumns. Betting successfully on a collumn pays 3-to-1. You can also bet on half the field(the two zeros are excluded from both the collumns and the evens/odds and red/black) with a pay rate of 2-to-1.
When I play, I bet two equal stacks of chips, one on each of two collumns. This means if I win I receive three stacks of chips back, covering my bet and giving me the same payout as if I had bet half the board. On the one hand this gives me better odds than betting red/black/odd/even as I'm covering slightly less than 2/3 of the board. It also means if I lose I lose twice as much.
Now, when I do lose I double down, placing double the original bet on the same collumns. If I lose again the bet is redoubled and again placed on the same collumns. This process is repeated until one of my two collumns wins, bringing me all the money that I'd lost in that stretch and one stack the size of the original bet. If I win on a particular spin, I move my bets to the other two collumns. I admit that this doesn't effect my odds of winning, but at the very least it gives me something to do and assuages that nagging feeling that it *has* to be more likely to hit on the other two collumns after a string of hits on one of them. I know, not true, but it sure makes sense and if it doesn't hurt my odds than it really doesn't matter.
There are obvious problems with this which were entailed in the Gambler's Falacy and Martingale System pages linked in the previous post. A very long string of losses is not impossible, even if it may be unlikely. Given the doubling of bets, a sufficiently long string of losses would bankrupt the player eventually.
The difference I think between my system and the Martingale system it that the latter seems to assume, based on the Wikipedia page, that the odds of success on a given bet are slightly less than 50%. That being the case it makes sense that over time you would eventually lose all your money. But my system has odds in my favor in execess of 60%. This in particular is where I need help from math inclined folks. Do the higher odds of success in my model make it viable where the Martingale system is not? It is granted that a player using my system needs a bank to draw from far in excess of the minimum bet they are using (I figure that a bank of $400-$500 for a table with a $15 minimum bet is sufficiently "safe"). It is also granted that given limited funds this system could be beated by a bad streak of luck, say hitting the same collumn and/or the zeros four or five times in a row. But I do think that the odds of such a streak are pretty poor and represent probably the best odds you can get in a casino.
Any thoughts?
*It should be noted at the outset that I always play the table with the lowest minimum bet and I *always* bet the minimum, except as specified in the explanation.
Feedback from my students
With the start of the new semester, I've gotten the packet of student evaluations from the end of last semester. The best (by which I mean most amusing) answer was to the question `Did you meet your teaching assistant during office hours? If you did, why not? If you did were the meetings helpful?'
More seriously, I've identified a few things I need to work on, and a few things about the format of the course that caused serious problems.
First, as a grader, I'm used to working through math exams, not papers. Grading math exams, you usually only need to identify the point at which the student forgot how to use the method she or he is applying in each particular problem. Paper grading is much more subtle, and I need to take the time to figure out the most time-efficient way to make helpful comments.
Second, I was surprised to see several students say things like `He also never really encouraged us or made us feel positive.' I need to give more positive feedback, even just for answers that are on the right track but not totally right, in both class and papers.
Third, especially with introductory courses, the students need a fair amount of explicit structural guidelines when they go to write their papers. A common strategy I've seen my friends and colleagues use is to have a series of progressively more involved paper assignments. For example, in the first assignment, students just have to summarise an argument in a perspicacious way; in the second, they summarise and formulate a single objection; in the third, they summarise, object, and then rebut the objection. The distribution of the paper assignments is accompanied with discussions on how to summarise arguments and how to formulate objections.
Fourth, students need some variety. Lecture-lecture-discussion gets old, and sometimes they need more lecture or more discussion. That's a flexibility I don't really have as a TA, but I do have some wiggle room: I can sacrifice our discussion time to lecture, and do things like ask students to give presentations or lead discussions.
Fifth, I have learned how not to formulate exam questions. Intro students should be asked to regurgitate major arguments, or briefly compare and contrast what Plato, Descartes, and Perry think about the soul. They should not be asked to recall trivial minutiae about the readings, with virtually no guidelines as to what minutiae they will be asked about.
And sixth, at the introductory level, a `student directed' course is just begging for disaster. I'm not sure that I ever explained the format here, so let me do so briefly now.
Thursday night, the students would finish their assigned reading, and email questions on that reading to their TAs. We sorted through them and put together handouts, and the discussion section on Friday was usually spent working through these questions. We would usually get through 4-6 (out of 20+ or so distinct questions) in the fifty-minute section. At the end of section, the students would identify questions that the TAs would send on to the professor that night. The lecture periods on Monday and Wednesday consisted almost exclusively of the professor answering these questions. Hence, if the students didn't consider it important or interesting or confusing, or important or interesting or confusing enough to warrant being sent up to the professor, it was never discussed in the context of the class. To make matters worse, we were supposed to never give them straight out answers; they were supposed to struggle with answering the questions of their classmates, and get direction but not answers from the lectures.
Unsurprisingly, many students found this immensely frustrating and never achieved even the barest beginnings of understanding of the texts. Incorporating at least a little Textbook Philosophy would have been slightly frustrating for us the professional philosophers, but at least the students have a chance of understanding what's going on.
Yes, they were sort of helpful except he never gave straight answers to my questions. I think that's a philosophy thing though.
More seriously, I've identified a few things I need to work on, and a few things about the format of the course that caused serious problems.
First, as a grader, I'm used to working through math exams, not papers. Grading math exams, you usually only need to identify the point at which the student forgot how to use the method she or he is applying in each particular problem. Paper grading is much more subtle, and I need to take the time to figure out the most time-efficient way to make helpful comments.
Second, I was surprised to see several students say things like `He also never really encouraged us or made us feel positive.' I need to give more positive feedback, even just for answers that are on the right track but not totally right, in both class and papers.
Third, especially with introductory courses, the students need a fair amount of explicit structural guidelines when they go to write their papers. A common strategy I've seen my friends and colleagues use is to have a series of progressively more involved paper assignments. For example, in the first assignment, students just have to summarise an argument in a perspicacious way; in the second, they summarise and formulate a single objection; in the third, they summarise, object, and then rebut the objection. The distribution of the paper assignments is accompanied with discussions on how to summarise arguments and how to formulate objections.
Fourth, students need some variety. Lecture-lecture-discussion gets old, and sometimes they need more lecture or more discussion. That's a flexibility I don't really have as a TA, but I do have some wiggle room: I can sacrifice our discussion time to lecture, and do things like ask students to give presentations or lead discussions.
Fifth, I have learned how not to formulate exam questions. Intro students should be asked to regurgitate major arguments, or briefly compare and contrast what Plato, Descartes, and Perry think about the soul. They should not be asked to recall trivial minutiae about the readings, with virtually no guidelines as to what minutiae they will be asked about.
And sixth, at the introductory level, a `student directed' course is just begging for disaster. I'm not sure that I ever explained the format here, so let me do so briefly now.
Thursday night, the students would finish their assigned reading, and email questions on that reading to their TAs. We sorted through them and put together handouts, and the discussion section on Friday was usually spent working through these questions. We would usually get through 4-6 (out of 20+ or so distinct questions) in the fifty-minute section. At the end of section, the students would identify questions that the TAs would send on to the professor that night. The lecture periods on Monday and Wednesday consisted almost exclusively of the professor answering these questions. Hence, if the students didn't consider it important or interesting or confusing, or important or interesting or confusing enough to warrant being sent up to the professor, it was never discussed in the context of the class. To make matters worse, we were supposed to never give them straight out answers; they were supposed to struggle with answering the questions of their classmates, and get direction but not answers from the lectures.
Unsurprisingly, many students found this immensely frustrating and never achieved even the barest beginnings of understanding of the texts. Incorporating at least a little Textbook Philosophy would have been slightly frustrating for us the professional philosophers, but at least the students have a chance of understanding what's going on.
January 15, 2007
The danger premium
In discussions on the wage gap (women, on average, make less than 75 cents for every dollar than men, on average, earn), one of the cards anti-feminists like to play is the `danger premium'. The idea is that, for whatever reason, women are less likely to take dangerous jobs; and because they are dangerous, these jobs pay more; hence, the wage gap can be explained by the danger premiums that men receive.
Let's grant the first premiss, and ignore the complete lack of analysis needed to reach the conclusion. Is the second premiss true? If you believe supply and demand curves model reality, then it has some intuitive force: in order to attract workers to these more dangerous jobs, you have to provide them with some incentive. On the other hand, if you're remotely familiar with reality, this is intuitively preposterous: obviously the unpleasant, dangerous work is done by the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, while the rich people have nice safe white collar jobs.
For more solid evidence, MSN (that great media critic of the socio-economic status quo) gives us this list of the eleven most life-threatening jobs: fishing workers, logging workers, aircraft pilots, iron and steel workers, refuse collectors, farmers, electrical line workers, truck drivers, `Miscellaneous agricultural workers', and construction workers. We also get fatality rates and average salary, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Take a moment to peruse the list.
Notice anything? The only category where the average salary is above $50k a year (roughly speaking, the bare minimum you need to live a comfortable middle-class life for a family of 4) are aircraft pilots and flight engineers, who are by far the most highly educated group in the list. The same goes for the other two lists in this article, of most injury-prone jobs and `Jobs That Could Make You Sick'. In fact, according to a chart produced by the Bureau in 1998 (and reproduced by Ampersand in his discussion of the danger premium as part of the wage gap series), the danger premium is not just the smallest of those investigated, but actually negative, while the corresponding knowledge premium is not just the highest of those investigated, but about three times the magnitude of the second highest. Dangerous jobs actually pay less, on average, not more. The danger premium hypothesis is not only wrong, but the exact opposite of reality.
Let's grant the first premiss, and ignore the complete lack of analysis needed to reach the conclusion. Is the second premiss true? If you believe supply and demand curves model reality, then it has some intuitive force: in order to attract workers to these more dangerous jobs, you have to provide them with some incentive. On the other hand, if you're remotely familiar with reality, this is intuitively preposterous: obviously the unpleasant, dangerous work is done by the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, while the rich people have nice safe white collar jobs.
For more solid evidence, MSN (that great media critic of the socio-economic status quo) gives us this list of the eleven most life-threatening jobs: fishing workers, logging workers, aircraft pilots, iron and steel workers, refuse collectors, farmers, electrical line workers, truck drivers, `Miscellaneous agricultural workers', and construction workers. We also get fatality rates and average salary, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Take a moment to peruse the list.
Notice anything? The only category where the average salary is above $50k a year (roughly speaking, the bare minimum you need to live a comfortable middle-class life for a family of 4) are aircraft pilots and flight engineers, who are by far the most highly educated group in the list. The same goes for the other two lists in this article, of most injury-prone jobs and `Jobs That Could Make You Sick'. In fact, according to a chart produced by the Bureau in 1998 (and reproduced by Ampersand in his discussion of the danger premium as part of the wage gap series), the danger premium is not just the smallest of those investigated, but actually negative, while the corresponding knowledge premium is not just the highest of those investigated, but about three times the magnitude of the second highest. Dangerous jobs actually pay less, on average, not more. The danger premium hypothesis is not only wrong, but the exact opposite of reality.
MLK, 2007
You certainly wouldn't know it looking at the homepage of The New York Times, but today we celebrate the life and work of Martin Luther King. Being an ivory tower intellectual, I celebrate not by contributing to the ongoing fight for justice and civil rights for all people everywhere, but instead by reading an essay. If you think this is a crappy way to celebrate, you're probably right, but it's a lot better than sleeping in and watching Comedy Central all day.
King was educated as a theologian, with a heavy dose of philosophy, and his Letter from Birmingham Jail is a beautiful discussion of the legitimacy and necessity of civil disobedience, just and unjust laws, and race consciousness:
Christians will also be interested in King's criticisms of the conventional American church; for more on that, read today's piece on King in The Chron.
The link above has links, in turn, to the Letter, and a brief historical discussion putting the Letter in context. It's not too long; I highly recommend taking a few minutes to read it.
King was educated as a theologian, with a heavy dose of philosophy, and his Letter from Birmingham Jail is a beautiful discussion of the legitimacy and necessity of civil disobedience, just and unjust laws, and race consciousness:
I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.
Christians will also be interested in King's criticisms of the conventional American church; for more on that, read today's piece on King in The Chron.
The link above has links, in turn, to the Letter, and a brief historical discussion putting the Letter in context. It's not too long; I highly recommend taking a few minutes to read it.
New web album
I'm going to start putting my favourite shots on a Picasa web album. All of the shots in there right now have been posted to this blog in the past, but I expect to add some others that have not been so posted.
January 14, 2007
Ma mere
A little too dark in the foreground, especially with the bright background, but this is one of the few good shots I have of her.
Light and shadows
Isn't Bo so cute? He tears the stuffing right out of those toys, though. Literally.
More colours
The `Muse of Architecture' statue in my mom's front yard. There was no Muse of Architecture, and none of them were male, but that's how it was advertised. Again, I'm amazed my camera managed to get these colours.
I have no idea how this came out
There is no way my cheap little digital, with all its low light problems, should have been able to take this shot -- much less get these colours. November 2006
How to make a cup of tea in the most pretentious way possible
Sure, you could just stick a bag of Lipton in a mug of water and heat the whole thing up in the microwave for 2 1/2 minutes. But why do that when you can turn the simple act of making a cup of tea into a ridiculously elaborate production?
First, you need the tea. Black tea has a long list of increasingly silly-named and expensive categories, and none of these go into ordinary tea bags. Instead, the stuff in tea bags is called `dust', and to the pretentious asshole, it tastes about as appetizing. I order whole leaf (`orange pekoe') tea from Peets, a coffee and tea company that is located almost exclusively in the Bay Area. For the slightly less pretentious, megamarts usually stock Twinings whole leaf tea on the top shelf above the bagged tea. My favourite blend is Irish Breakfast.
Second, you something in which to brew the tea. To enjoy the full flavour of your overpriced whole-leaf tea, it needs to brew in such a way that the water can flow freely around it. Tea infusers are usually too small to do this with maximum pretentiousness (especially if you're going to make multiple cups at once), so I use a French press. You'll want one teaspoon in the bottom of the press for every cup of tea.
Third, water. Freshly-drawn cold tap water should be filtered and heated in a kettle, whether electric or on a stove. Avoid boiling the water for more than a few seconds -- boiling causes oxygen to be released from the water, which can make the tea taste flat. Pour the water over the tea and let it steep for three to five minutes, depending on how strong you want it. Keep the plunger on the press up while the tea steeps; that's the whole reason we're using the press, after all.
Fourth, milk, whether cow's or soy, is an important part of developing the full flavour profile of the tea. Black tea contains tannins, which are the same compounds that make red wine dry, and get their name from their use in the tanning process. These enzymes literally attack and dehydrate your tongue, but in strong tea they can overwhelm your sense of taste. When milk is added, the tannins attack the milk instead of your tongue; the tea will not taste as dry, but you will be able to taste the full flavour profile.
If you plan on using cow's milk, fill each teacup or the tea pot with hot tap water while the tea is steeping. Dump this out, and add a small amount of milk in the bottom of the cups or pots before pouring the tea.
If you plan on using soy milk instead, I recommend Silk's Unsweetened, as it gives you more control over the final sweetness of the tea. Soy milk curdles more easily than cow's milk, which can give the tea an unpleasant grassy flavour. To avoid this, do not heat the cup or pot, and let the tea sit for three minutes after pouring before adding the milk.
Fifth, sweetener. Carefully (it's still extremely hot!) taste the tea before sweetening. If brewed for too long, black tea can taste bitter, and many people like a small amount of sweetener even in perfectly-brewed tea. I use local honey, about half a teaspoon for two cups of tea. Honey is much sweeter than sugar, and must be stirred longer in order to dissolve completely.
You have now spent half an hour making a single cup of tea. Bon appetit!
First, you need the tea. Black tea has a long list of increasingly silly-named and expensive categories, and none of these go into ordinary tea bags. Instead, the stuff in tea bags is called `dust', and to the pretentious asshole, it tastes about as appetizing. I order whole leaf (`orange pekoe') tea from Peets, a coffee and tea company that is located almost exclusively in the Bay Area. For the slightly less pretentious, megamarts usually stock Twinings whole leaf tea on the top shelf above the bagged tea. My favourite blend is Irish Breakfast.
Second, you something in which to brew the tea. To enjoy the full flavour of your overpriced whole-leaf tea, it needs to brew in such a way that the water can flow freely around it. Tea infusers are usually too small to do this with maximum pretentiousness (especially if you're going to make multiple cups at once), so I use a French press. You'll want one teaspoon in the bottom of the press for every cup of tea.
Third, water. Freshly-drawn cold tap water should be filtered and heated in a kettle, whether electric or on a stove. Avoid boiling the water for more than a few seconds -- boiling causes oxygen to be released from the water, which can make the tea taste flat. Pour the water over the tea and let it steep for three to five minutes, depending on how strong you want it. Keep the plunger on the press up while the tea steeps; that's the whole reason we're using the press, after all.
Fourth, milk, whether cow's or soy, is an important part of developing the full flavour profile of the tea. Black tea contains tannins, which are the same compounds that make red wine dry, and get their name from their use in the tanning process. These enzymes literally attack and dehydrate your tongue, but in strong tea they can overwhelm your sense of taste. When milk is added, the tannins attack the milk instead of your tongue; the tea will not taste as dry, but you will be able to taste the full flavour profile.
If you plan on using cow's milk, fill each teacup or the tea pot with hot tap water while the tea is steeping. Dump this out, and add a small amount of milk in the bottom of the cups or pots before pouring the tea.
If you plan on using soy milk instead, I recommend Silk's Unsweetened, as it gives you more control over the final sweetness of the tea. Soy milk curdles more easily than cow's milk, which can give the tea an unpleasant grassy flavour. To avoid this, do not heat the cup or pot, and let the tea sit for three minutes after pouring before adding the milk.
Fifth, sweetener. Carefully (it's still extremely hot!) taste the tea before sweetening. If brewed for too long, black tea can taste bitter, and many people like a small amount of sweetener even in perfectly-brewed tea. I use local honey, about half a teaspoon for two cups of tea. Honey is much sweeter than sugar, and must be stirred longer in order to dissolve completely.
You have now spent half an hour making a single cup of tea. Bon appetit!
January 13, 2007
Raising the minimum wage has no negative effect on employment
For the past year and a half, a group of students at ND has been fighting a campaign to raise the minimum wage paid to university staff (especially janitors and plant maintenance folks) to a living wage of $10-12/hr. The group makes some interesting -- and, I think, undeniably logically valid -- appeals to Catholic notions of social justice, but the university's policy has basically been to completely ignore the issue. Naturally, this is a fight that shows up in the letters to the editor to the Observer, the main student daily paper, with opponents of a living wage tossing out standard arguments (non-sequiturs in this case) about how raising the minimum wage increases unemployment.
Amp has found pretty solid evidence that this is simply false. I want to hang on to this reference so I can cite it when the issue inevitably bubbles up again.
The link has more general interest to us bloggy folks because Amp narrates a failed conservative effort to refute the study.
Amp has found pretty solid evidence that this is simply false. I want to hang on to this reference so I can cite it when the issue inevitably bubbles up again.
By comparing changes in employment in the two states (a procedure they referred to as “differences-indifferences”), Card and Krueger were able to estimate the employment effects of the New Jersey increase. Using this approach, they found that the differences in employment growth between the two states were not statistically significant. They concluded, therefore, that the minimum-wage increase did not lower employment in New Jersey.
The link has more general interest to us bloggy folks because Amp narrates a failed conservative effort to refute the study.
January 12, 2007
Taking A Break
I've been on a hell of a tear here at work today, mostly because I spent a little too much time blogging at work this week and got way behind. But look at me, master typer, I've almost completely caught up and I have an hour left at work, so I decided to take a quick break and read up a bit on last night's hockey madness when I came across this story. Seriously, that's some Hollywood shit right there.
On top of the sweetness of the story, I also have Selanne on my fantasy hockey team.
On top of the sweetness of the story, I also have Selanne on my fantasy hockey team.
Noumena who? + a review
I'm back! California was excellent, as California always is, but the new semester looms just over the horizon of next week, and so I have returned to Indiana.
And to not totally waste your time reading this useless post, let's start things up again with a review of Blood diamond.
Over the past decade or so, we've seen a growing microgenre of films I'll call White People Realising How Badly They've Fucked Things Up, or WPRHBTFTU. Only that's really awkward, so I think I'll just call them Liberal Guilt films. That term might be slightly misleading, but I think it does generally capture the audience and message these films are meant to portray: they're made by and for liberal, relatively wealthy, white people in the US and Europe, and the point is to make that audience feel guilty about the way we have collectively fucked up some other part of the world, in nominal but probably ultimately futile hopes that we'll go fix things. Prior to the release of Blood diamond, I would say that Three kings was the best example in this microgenre. An inconvenient truth also falls into it, as do Hotel Rwanda, Syriana, and Constant gardener.
Films in the Liberal Guilt microgenre have a number of factors that must be carefully managed. First, a complex history of several forms of exploitation must be represented, for the sake of an easily-digestible narrative, by a relatively contained historical act. In Blood diamond, this exploitation is the exchange of military support for both sides in factional conflicts for mineral wealth over the past three centuries or so, and the single historical event are the circumstances of the civil war in Sierra Leone in 1999. Portrayed awkwardly, the result might have been an oversimplification -- historical, systematic exploitation is turned into an isolated incident. Blood diamond avoids this, though mostly by bracketing the film between a few expository scenes.
Next, and perhaps more importantly, when whites are portrayed as the primary agents there is a risk that the non-white population will be portrayed as either their passive victims or their brutish auxiliaries. Constant gardener suffered this flaw, with its complete lack of fully-developed black African characters. Blood diamond occasionally comes close to having the same problem, though it's hard to tell for sure whether it's crossed the line. The primary narrative drive of the film is the recovery of a large diamond discovered by Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a black African, so that he can be reunited with his family, by selling it to Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a white African. Archer often takes the lead and the initiative, expecting Vandy to simply do as he's told. He does so, but there are moments when it is clear that Vandy is not really interested in the diamond at all, is helping Archer because he feels it is necessary to get his family back, and is far more aware than Archer of the racism implicit in their `partnership'. This subtle self-consciousness might have redeemed Blood diamond from any accusations of racism, except that the filmmaker has Archer, not Vandy, develop the not-so-intricate plot that plays out over the final fifteen minutes of the film and gives Archer, not Vandy, a romantic subplot, thereby designating Archer, not Vandy, the protagonist.
While a bit needlessly long (143 minutes, and half an hour really should have been cut out), Blood diamond is quite watchable, and is certainly successful in instilling guilt in its target liberal audience. I highly recommend both seeing this film and spending an hour or so afterwards talking about it over something hot and caffeinated; while very much an action film, it is one that requires a fair amount of processing afterwards. As a good film should be.
And to not totally waste your time reading this useless post, let's start things up again with a review of Blood diamond.
Over the past decade or so, we've seen a growing microgenre of films I'll call White People Realising How Badly They've Fucked Things Up, or WPRHBTFTU. Only that's really awkward, so I think I'll just call them Liberal Guilt films. That term might be slightly misleading, but I think it does generally capture the audience and message these films are meant to portray: they're made by and for liberal, relatively wealthy, white people in the US and Europe, and the point is to make that audience feel guilty about the way we have collectively fucked up some other part of the world, in nominal but probably ultimately futile hopes that we'll go fix things. Prior to the release of Blood diamond, I would say that Three kings was the best example in this microgenre. An inconvenient truth also falls into it, as do Hotel Rwanda, Syriana, and Constant gardener.
Films in the Liberal Guilt microgenre have a number of factors that must be carefully managed. First, a complex history of several forms of exploitation must be represented, for the sake of an easily-digestible narrative, by a relatively contained historical act. In Blood diamond, this exploitation is the exchange of military support for both sides in factional conflicts for mineral wealth over the past three centuries or so, and the single historical event are the circumstances of the civil war in Sierra Leone in 1999. Portrayed awkwardly, the result might have been an oversimplification -- historical, systematic exploitation is turned into an isolated incident. Blood diamond avoids this, though mostly by bracketing the film between a few expository scenes.
Next, and perhaps more importantly, when whites are portrayed as the primary agents there is a risk that the non-white population will be portrayed as either their passive victims or their brutish auxiliaries. Constant gardener suffered this flaw, with its complete lack of fully-developed black African characters. Blood diamond occasionally comes close to having the same problem, though it's hard to tell for sure whether it's crossed the line. The primary narrative drive of the film is the recovery of a large diamond discovered by Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a black African, so that he can be reunited with his family, by selling it to Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a white African. Archer often takes the lead and the initiative, expecting Vandy to simply do as he's told. He does so, but there are moments when it is clear that Vandy is not really interested in the diamond at all, is helping Archer because he feels it is necessary to get his family back, and is far more aware than Archer of the racism implicit in their `partnership'. This subtle self-consciousness might have redeemed Blood diamond from any accusations of racism, except that the filmmaker has Archer, not Vandy, develop the not-so-intricate plot that plays out over the final fifteen minutes of the film and gives Archer, not Vandy, a romantic subplot, thereby designating Archer, not Vandy, the protagonist.
While a bit needlessly long (143 minutes, and half an hour really should have been cut out), Blood diamond is quite watchable, and is certainly successful in instilling guilt in its target liberal audience. I highly recommend both seeing this film and spending an hour or so afterwards talking about it over something hot and caffeinated; while very much an action film, it is one that requires a fair amount of processing afterwards. As a good film should be.
January 11, 2007
Review: Children Of Men
As we walked out of the movie last night, one of the people with me said something like, “That was a great movie. I never want to see it again.” Children of Men is not a light, happy movie in either production or story. I’ve heard the film techniques used described as “like Saving Private Ryan” and that comparison is apt. The colors are bleak and gritty while the characters are nearly always mussed and dirty in some way. The world is loud and distracting, filled with as much auditory horror as visual.
Children of Men takes place in the mid-21st Century, twenty years after all the women on Earth inexplicably ceased being able to have babies. With no children, and thus no future, the world has degenerated into chaos. Most of the major world powers have collapsed, leaving Britain as the presumably last stable country, and barely stable at that. Clive Owen plays Theodore, former political activist currently in a job he hates. Most people in the movie come off as just waiting for the inevitable end, and Theo is certainly one of those at the beginning of the film. Obviously in a film such as this the main character gets shaken out of their ennui by a variety of events and becomes active in an desperately important struggle. I’m not giving anything away (it’s in the trailer and is pretty obvious based on the concept) by telling you that Theo is introduced to a young woman who is pregnant with the first baby in eighteen years.
I’ve become convinced that the very best drama isn’t necessarily serious from start to finish. Joss Whedon uses humor to great effect in his works as a way to really hammer home the tragedy when something bad happens. In Children of Men the same is true. Most of the movie you’re slack jawed at the nonstop tragedy of the movie only to unexpectedly find yourself laughing at some weird, quirky moment. The most powerful moments of the film revolve around those light, happy moments.
I understand exactly what the person I was with meant. I’m certain that I’ll never be lounging around on a Saturday afternoon and think to myself, “I’m going to pop in Children of Men!” When I will watch it again, however, is any time I’m with someone and am forced to say, “What?! You’ve never seen Children of Men?! Well you’re going to see it right now!”
This movie is chaotic, visceral, and one of the best looking and sounding movies I've seen in a long time.This is a movie everyone should see. It’s dark, bleak, and depressing, but it’s also fantastic.
Children of Men takes place in the mid-21st Century, twenty years after all the women on Earth inexplicably ceased being able to have babies. With no children, and thus no future, the world has degenerated into chaos. Most of the major world powers have collapsed, leaving Britain as the presumably last stable country, and barely stable at that. Clive Owen plays Theodore, former political activist currently in a job he hates. Most people in the movie come off as just waiting for the inevitable end, and Theo is certainly one of those at the beginning of the film. Obviously in a film such as this the main character gets shaken out of their ennui by a variety of events and becomes active in an desperately important struggle. I’m not giving anything away (it’s in the trailer and is pretty obvious based on the concept) by telling you that Theo is introduced to a young woman who is pregnant with the first baby in eighteen years.
I’ve become convinced that the very best drama isn’t necessarily serious from start to finish. Joss Whedon uses humor to great effect in his works as a way to really hammer home the tragedy when something bad happens. In Children of Men the same is true. Most of the movie you’re slack jawed at the nonstop tragedy of the movie only to unexpectedly find yourself laughing at some weird, quirky moment. The most powerful moments of the film revolve around those light, happy moments.
I understand exactly what the person I was with meant. I’m certain that I’ll never be lounging around on a Saturday afternoon and think to myself, “I’m going to pop in Children of Men!” When I will watch it again, however, is any time I’m with someone and am forced to say, “What?! You’ve never seen Children of Men?! Well you’re going to see it right now!”
This movie is chaotic, visceral, and one of the best looking and sounding movies I've seen in a long time.This is a movie everyone should see. It’s dark, bleak, and depressing, but it’s also fantastic.
Help Me Not Become A Gambling Addict
Ok, money has been tight in the House o' Ben lately and when I find the cash flowing a bit slower than I like my mind invariably drifts to dreams of getting rich quick. This particular instance has presented itself by constant thoughts of gambling, spurred, I'm sure, by the fact that the last time I visited nearby Atlantic City I walked away with $150 in winnings. Unfortunately, I've become convinced that I've figured out a way to play roulette which is "sure to win."
...
...
...
I had written a long paragraph describing my strategy and why it's impossible to lose. Then I cruised over to Wikipedia and found that the gambling strategy I "discovered" was rather like the Martingale System, which operates on the Gambler's Fallacy. So, I think reading the article sufficiently sobered me that I won't daydream about winning big money in the casinos any time soon, but I'm probably *still* going to play under my system the next time I'm playing roulette. It still seems like your best shot at winning.
Update: Ok, I'm still not entirely convinced. The Martingal System works under the assumption that a game, such as a coin flip, will have odds approximating 50/50. If I'm playing two collumns in roulette I should have a slightly less than 2/3 chance of winning, right? The idea that streaks are not impossible, just unlikely still applies, but it should apply less so because the chances of a streak on half the numbers, say all the red ones, is more likely than a streak on one third of the numbers, say a collumn plus the green zeroes. Someone more versed in math than I (I'm looking at you Noumena) should reply in the comments why this is wrong.
...
...
...
I had written a long paragraph describing my strategy and why it's impossible to lose. Then I cruised over to Wikipedia and found that the gambling strategy I "discovered" was rather like the Martingale System, which operates on the Gambler's Fallacy. So, I think reading the article sufficiently sobered me that I won't daydream about winning big money in the casinos any time soon, but I'm probably *still* going to play under my system the next time I'm playing roulette. It still seems like your best shot at winning.
Update: Ok, I'm still not entirely convinced. The Martingal System works under the assumption that a game, such as a coin flip, will have odds approximating 50/50. If I'm playing two collumns in roulette I should have a slightly less than 2/3 chance of winning, right? The idea that streaks are not impossible, just unlikely still applies, but it should apply less so because the chances of a streak on half the numbers, say all the red ones, is more likely than a streak on one third of the numbers, say a collumn plus the green zeroes. Someone more versed in math than I (I'm looking at you Noumena) should reply in the comments why this is wrong.
Thanks Atrios
For again showing me another example of why nobody should take Fox News seriously. At its most charitable interpretation she's saying he's openly hostile to the White House but I think another fair interpretation would be that she's saying he's a hostile enemy of the country. All this on national TV. Are you kidding me?!
The War
Link. It's been a while since I've blogged about the war in Iraq, but that's mostly because there haven't been any major changes. The Iraq Study Group released a report that was ignored by the Administration and then quickly forgotten by the media. President Bush plans an escalation of troops with no clear or new plan that will turn this thing around. Iraqis and US troops keep dying. The country continues to get worse.
I have to say that I'm not gung ho about immediate withdrawl. Lots of folks on the internet, and even some real life friends, have the conviction to steadily and firmly call for pulling our guys out now. I find myself uncharitaristically hesitant though. Mostly it's arguments about the human rights disaster that will absolutely occur when we pull out. Shiite militias *will* band together to round up groups of Sunnis and execute them. A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran will be fought in Iraq. It will be bloody. It will be awful. It will be our fault. Many arguments for staying that I come across use this inevitable outcome as justification for staying. "We're not making the country better, per se, we're just barely keeping the lid on another Rwanda." Most of these people admit that the country is getting worse and none that I've seen offer any hope that this is going to turn around. If that is the case, all we're doing is slowing the country's decent into anarchy rather than letting it fall in one horrible explosion.
Ok, I understand that argument and it makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that none of these people offer any timetables or benchmarks for us to look for when the time has finally come to leave. If we're not even expecting things to get better anymore, when will things have gotten bad enough, ever so slowly under our careful watch, that it will be time to leave?
I have to say that I'm not gung ho about immediate withdrawl. Lots of folks on the internet, and even some real life friends, have the conviction to steadily and firmly call for pulling our guys out now. I find myself uncharitaristically hesitant though. Mostly it's arguments about the human rights disaster that will absolutely occur when we pull out. Shiite militias *will* band together to round up groups of Sunnis and execute them. A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran will be fought in Iraq. It will be bloody. It will be awful. It will be our fault. Many arguments for staying that I come across use this inevitable outcome as justification for staying. "We're not making the country better, per se, we're just barely keeping the lid on another Rwanda." Most of these people admit that the country is getting worse and none that I've seen offer any hope that this is going to turn around. If that is the case, all we're doing is slowing the country's decent into anarchy rather than letting it fall in one horrible explosion.
Ok, I understand that argument and it makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that none of these people offer any timetables or benchmarks for us to look for when the time has finally come to leave. If we're not even expecting things to get better anymore, when will things have gotten bad enough, ever so slowly under our careful watch, that it will be time to leave?
January 10, 2007
Guitar Hero 360
Game Informer has announced some Guitar Hero goodness for the Xbox 360, including 10 exclusive songs that will be available.
Possum Kingdom—Toadies*
Salvation—Rancid
Life Wasted—Pearl Jam
Billion Dollar Babies—Alice Cooper
Hush—Deep Purple
Rock and Roll Hoochie Koo—Rick Derringer
Dead!—My Chemical Romance*
The Trooper—Iron Maiden
Bonus unlockable songs
Drink Up—Ounce of Self
Kicked to the Curb—Noble Rot
Still Thinking
So I spent some time mulling over how cool the iPhone is. Then I cruised the 'net a bit and read all kinds of gushing by a bunch of different people. Clearly the iPhone is the winner of CES (the tradeshow at which it was announced). Now that I've had a chance to react against other gushing folks though, I'm not as excited. It took Apple ten generations of operating systems to really come up with something that appeals to non-Mac enthusiasts. It took them four generations of iPod before they really got it right*. The iPod Nano shipped with screens that got scratched if you breathed on them. Apple is a company that comes up with great ideas and gets them right eventually. Are they getting better at reducing the number of lame first generation products they release? Possibly. But I'm more glad than ever that I just recently locked myself into a new 2 year cell phone contract because by the time my contract is up they'll probably be a few months off from releasing the third generation iPhone, which is probably about the time it will be all that it should be.
Also, by then I should have more money.
Don't count Microsoft out though. Yeah, they took a long time to get into the MP3 market. It's probably even fair to say that they waited so long that Apple entrenched itself in the zeitgeist as *the* MP3 company. Still, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Zune as far as I've heard. Indeed, prior to the iPhone announcement I was pretty excited about the machine. The comparison to their console business couldn't be more clear. Their first generation machine is kind of a clunker. It's so late to the party that nobody even considers the possibility that they'll take the crown away from Sony. It's got some good features and is in many ways superior to the PS2 but that doesn't matter because Sony *was* console gaming in the minds of the gaming public. Microsoft takes a few years to build some infrastructure and do some research and then release the 360, a very good machine that has a good shot at capturing marketshare if not holding onto the lead they've already forged for themselves. Microsoft has talked about getting into the cell phone market for years. They *will* get into the cell phone market and it's almost certain that the first product they release will be some extension of the Zune. How will it stack up to the iPhone? Who knows, but the first company to release a new, innovative product is not always the company that delivers the best product. The 18 year old me would care enough about being the first to have an iPhone that he'd be willing to put up with the innevitable quirks. The 27 year old me is willing to wait for somebody to get it right.
*People forget that the first generation iPods sucked pretty bad, despite their great potential. The click circle was actually a movable click wheel that fell off the thing after moderate use. The battery died if you even thought about playing Freebird back to back. The screen was dark, drab and not nearly as easy to read as their newer models, and compared to the current product the thing was a brick.
Also, by then I should have more money.
Don't count Microsoft out though. Yeah, they took a long time to get into the MP3 market. It's probably even fair to say that they waited so long that Apple entrenched itself in the zeitgeist as *the* MP3 company. Still, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Zune as far as I've heard. Indeed, prior to the iPhone announcement I was pretty excited about the machine. The comparison to their console business couldn't be more clear. Their first generation machine is kind of a clunker. It's so late to the party that nobody even considers the possibility that they'll take the crown away from Sony. It's got some good features and is in many ways superior to the PS2 but that doesn't matter because Sony *was* console gaming in the minds of the gaming public. Microsoft takes a few years to build some infrastructure and do some research and then release the 360, a very good machine that has a good shot at capturing marketshare if not holding onto the lead they've already forged for themselves. Microsoft has talked about getting into the cell phone market for years. They *will* get into the cell phone market and it's almost certain that the first product they release will be some extension of the Zune. How will it stack up to the iPhone? Who knows, but the first company to release a new, innovative product is not always the company that delivers the best product. The 18 year old me would care enough about being the first to have an iPhone that he'd be willing to put up with the innevitable quirks. The 27 year old me is willing to wait for somebody to get it right.
*People forget that the first generation iPods sucked pretty bad, despite their great potential. The click circle was actually a movable click wheel that fell off the thing after moderate use. The battery died if you even thought about playing Freebird back to back. The screen was dark, drab and not nearly as easy to read as their newer models, and compared to the current product the thing was a brick.
Heathcare
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a healthcare reform package for the State of California that has people on both the left and right all razzled up. Ezra breaks it down here much better than I could hope to. Hey, no skin off my back, the kid's an internet genius focusing in healthcare. I'm just glad I could understand most of it. Anyhow, I know we have a few lawyers, at least one doctor, and folks interested in politics reading the blog and I'd like to hear your opinions on this particular bill and universal healthcare (which Ezra rightly points out, this bill is *not*) generally.
Personally, given the horrible state of our healthcare system I think this is obviously a step in the right direction but, as Ezra says, not anywhere near what we need.
I looked briefly for a conservative take on this proposal, but being at work I couldn't devote a significant amount of time to searching. Unfortunately I didn't run across any sources that I know/recognize as respected conservative bloggers. I'll throw up a link if I find something, but feel free to post a link in the comments if you see something pertinent.
Incidentally, while looking for a conservative response to this plan I ran across this bit from Jonah Goldberg at The Corner discussing Star Trek's Prime Directive. He, of course, gets it wrong. Series subsequent to the Original Series have made clear that Kirk's era played fast and loose with all kinds of rules, often leading to bad results. The Prime Directive is there for a reason and breaking it is among the most serious offenses in the mythos. Obviously.
Personally, given the horrible state of our healthcare system I think this is obviously a step in the right direction but, as Ezra says, not anywhere near what we need.
I looked briefly for a conservative take on this proposal, but being at work I couldn't devote a significant amount of time to searching. Unfortunately I didn't run across any sources that I know/recognize as respected conservative bloggers. I'll throw up a link if I find something, but feel free to post a link in the comments if you see something pertinent.
Incidentally, while looking for a conservative response to this plan I ran across this bit from Jonah Goldberg at The Corner discussing Star Trek's Prime Directive. He, of course, gets it wrong. Series subsequent to the Original Series have made clear that Kirk's era played fast and loose with all kinds of rules, often leading to bad results. The Prime Directive is there for a reason and breaking it is among the most serious offenses in the mythos. Obviously.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!!!!!
So after drooling over the iPhone some more I went over to Ezra's place (where I found out about the phone in the first place) to check the comments. Most of the discussion revolves around why Apple would make this phone a Cingular exclusive, which led to a lot of discussion about which carriers are better than others.
There's no consensus about which carrier is the best, but there's plenty of discussion about which ones *aren't* the best, particularly Sprint. I've been with Sprint for four and a half years now and I guess I just don't understand what the cell phone experience is supposed to be. Other than the state of Nebraska, where Sprint, it seems, believes people are still using the String-and-Can network of communication, the only place I have had with coverage is in my old apartment. I don't know what it was about that place (I lived in a room in a very old house), but the second I stepped outside I got full coverage, so it wasn't that Sprint was bad in that area. My old phone (recently replaced with a shiny *new* phone) didn't do text messaging so well, but I was, and still am, able to get on regular internet pages while folks on other networks don't seem to be able to.
I don't know, is there something I'm missing? Some piece of the cell phone experience that I'm not missing because I don't realize I should be having it?
I did just read that Cingular is the only carrier in the US that's fully unionized, which I like, but that can't be the way these companies jockey for customers. Is getting exclusive phones really persuasive to you guys, enough so that you'd switch providers? And what, if anything, is it that you like about your current provider?
There's no consensus about which carrier is the best, but there's plenty of discussion about which ones *aren't* the best, particularly Sprint. I've been with Sprint for four and a half years now and I guess I just don't understand what the cell phone experience is supposed to be. Other than the state of Nebraska, where Sprint, it seems, believes people are still using the String-and-Can network of communication, the only place I have had with coverage is in my old apartment. I don't know what it was about that place (I lived in a room in a very old house), but the second I stepped outside I got full coverage, so it wasn't that Sprint was bad in that area. My old phone (recently replaced with a shiny *new* phone) didn't do text messaging so well, but I was, and still am, able to get on regular internet pages while folks on other networks don't seem to be able to.
I don't know, is there something I'm missing? Some piece of the cell phone experience that I'm not missing because I don't realize I should be having it?
I did just read that Cingular is the only carrier in the US that's fully unionized, which I like, but that can't be the way these companies jockey for customers. Is getting exclusive phones really persuasive to you guys, enough so that you'd switch providers? And what, if anything, is it that you like about your current provider?
January 09, 2007
I've Said It Before...
And I'll say it again, I love Apple products, it's just that damn Mac attitude that makes me cringe. Still, it's hard not to drool at the new iPhone (scroll down a ways). Seriously, that thing's awesome. Hopefully they'll release a version for Sprint eventually so I can get one. Hopefully by then the phones will have more memory. 8 gigs is plenty for a randomized music playlist, but if we start talking about video I'd like to have a bit more room to play with.
January 08, 2007
For The Word Nerds
After hitting up the Dictionary.com Word of the Day pretty much every day for the last few years, I finally signed up for the email list a few months ago. Now i get new words every day! But if that's not enough lexico-nerdacity for you, check out A Word A Day for even more words! Now I get two word related emails per day!
Update: Strangely enough, not ten minutes after posting this I ended up here.
Update: Strangely enough, not ten minutes after posting this I ended up here.
January 07, 2007
You, Tube!
It's a Wonderful Life: The Undirector's Cut
The Simpsons UK Christmas Greeting
Drumming in various rooms of an apartment. Pretty cool.
The Simpsons UK Christmas Greeting
Drumming in various rooms of an apartment. Pretty cool.
Go Birds! Cah-Caaawwww!!!!
Well Seattle sqeaked out a win last night. Well, really, Dallas squeaked out a loss, but we'll take it. Later today Philly takes on the Giants. I'm hoping for an Eagles/Seahawks conference championship, so let's go birds!
December 19, 2006
Videos
I had some requests for a link to the "Naughty Little Mermaid" video. Well, there you go.
Call me a nerd, but I like Leonard Nimoy and Bill Shatner better.
Also, the latest from Andy Samberg and the crew at SNL.
Call me a nerd, but I like Leonard Nimoy and Bill Shatner better.
Also, the latest from Andy Samberg and the crew at SNL.
December 17, 2006
December 15, 2006
Child's Play
I haven't mentioned Child's Play yet this year, so it's damn time I do. Now in its fourth year, Child's Play is the brainchild of the Penny Arcade boys. It occurred to them in 2003 that with all the bad press games and gamers get, it'd be nice to point to to say, "See, we're decent sorts of folks too. Games didn't make us killers." This isn't to say this is a purely mercenary affair; doing good deeds to be lauded. The targets of the yearly fundraiser are Children's Hospitals. In the first year they ran the charity out of their garage and supported one hospital in Seattle. Now they run everything online and have the gifts and money sent directly to the hospitals, which increasingly are spread over the globe. Donations of video games, money, and miscellaneous toys have increased every year since its inception and they're currently shooting for $800,000 raised this year and over $2 million since the first year. Another neat facet of the charity is that they take absolutely no administrative fees or charges from the donations; every dollar goes to the hospitals. If you're thinking of making a donation this year, there are worse places to send your money to.
Incidentally, they just had a dinner/auction and there are pictures up.
Incidentally, they just had a dinner/auction and there are pictures up.
December 13, 2006
Link dump
Before I take off for my desperately needed month-long break (during which time I will write a paper on infinitesimals, because that's just how much fun my life is), I thought I'd clear out my rather large `To blog' folder. Evidently it's been a couple of months since I've done this, because the first post is dated September 20.
See you all in a month!
- Pandagon on Gore's proposal to eliminate payroll taxes and replace them with pollution taxes. The idea is that this would be revenue-neutral for workers and most businesses, and would encourage the largest businesses to reduce their pollution output.
- sinister girl argues that prostitution is anything but a victimless crime.
- Barry Lynn argues that Wal-Mart's most pernicious aspect is the power it enjoys as a monopsonist. For more on monopsony, check out Alan Manning's recent book, Monopsony in motion: Imperfect competition in labor markets.
- Jenn: The GOP is the real party of death.
- Feministing with a link to a report arguing that, rather than `opting out', many of those homemakers with the $120k educations the NYT periodically gets all breathless over aren't actually so traditional after all.
- sinister girl, with some great advice on how to prevent rape: by not raping people.
- Elayne Riggs gives a great table of contents of the series Goodbye to comics. Comic fans who haven't read this yet really should.
- Amanda thinks about lefty guilt and what the world would be like if, somehow, we actually managed to win.
- Jenn surveys the racist reactions to Rosie O'Donnell's racist non-joke last week. All six reactions make for excellent illustrations of the same point: through the eyes of privilege, `the problem with racism is not about the victim of the racist action, but the perpetrator and their intent.'
See you all in a month!
Sony Is Sneaky
Sony just can't get a leg up. The PS3 is having supply problems on top of not having a great launch lineup and being mega expensive. The PSP is getting trounced by the Nintendo DS. A year ago they tried to drum up support for the PSP by hiring graffiti artists to do tags supporting the machine. Now they've hired a company to make, among other things, fake You Tube videos from "fans" pledging their love of it.
December 10, 2006
Jonathan Coulton
I'm not sure if you all know about Jonathan Coulton, but if you don't, check out Code Monkey and the video for Flicker. He's got lots of free songs to download, but I'm honestly considering buying some stuff from him just to throw some support his way. Here's his main page.
Yeah, I'm pretty much posting this so I can find it at some later date, but you really all should check his stuff out.
Edit: Some lyrics for the holidays:
"Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime, where we’re working in a mine for our robot overlords. Did I say overlords? I meant protectors. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime."
Yeah, I'm pretty much posting this so I can find it at some later date, but you really all should check his stuff out.
Edit: Some lyrics for the holidays:
"Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime, where we’re working in a mine for our robot overlords. Did I say overlords? I meant protectors. Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime."
Good To Know
There have been scattered reports of faulty straps on the Wiimote since its release. Evidently these strap failures have been responsible for more than a few broken TVs as the Wiimote flies from the sweaty hand of a gamer not used to moving quite so much. Seriously, people have accidentally broken their expensive HDTVs by essentially throwing the Wiimote at the screen.
Anyhow, whethere there's a design flaw or not, here are some more things to avoid when using your fancy new Wii.
Anyhow, whethere there's a design flaw or not, here are some more things to avoid when using your fancy new Wii.
December 06, 2006
Next-Gen Wars!
Here's a new Halo 3 trailer. Not a ton of gameplay, but it's enough to get me excited.
Also, NextGen Wars is finally a useful site to watch the battle for console supremacy develope.
Also, NextGen Wars is finally a useful site to watch the battle for console supremacy develope.
December 04, 2006
End of the semester hell
is, well, hell. I should've made this official weeks ago, but my blogging will be on hiatus until I get back from California mid-January. Unless I give you a blog dump sometime in the next few days, which is quite likely.
Happy holidays, everyone!
Happy holidays, everyone!
December 02, 2006
Shorter NYT: We love us some gender essentialism!
A fascinating article this morning in the NYT on positive changes in the attitudes of parents, educators, and child psychologists towards very young transgender kids. Unfortunately, the writer seems completely ignorant of the issues surrounding transgender, and spend the first third of the piece forcing the entire issue into a cisnormative framework. Here are some highlights:
`Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.'
How could anyone display a predispostion to wear certain clothes over others? That's like having an predisposition to speak Italian instead of English, or a predisposition to be an atheist.
`The prospect of cross-dressing kindergartners has sparked a deep philosophical divide among professionals over how best to counsel families.'
Transgender people are not cross-dressers. The whole point is that they aren't easily classified as either gender. The first part of this sentence is as fundamentally mistaken as saying intersex people have the wrong genitals.
`Is it healthier for families to follow the child’s lead, or to spare children potential humiliation and isolation by steering them toward accepting their biological gender until they are older?'
That is, is it better to enforce strict dichotomies of sex and gender just so we don't have to challenge them?
The latter two thirds is much better. It's probably no coincidence that this part is almost entirely composed of quotations from parents and progressive educators and the like.
`Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.'
How could anyone display a predispostion to wear certain clothes over others? That's like having an predisposition to speak Italian instead of English, or a predisposition to be an atheist.
`The prospect of cross-dressing kindergartners has sparked a deep philosophical divide among professionals over how best to counsel families.'
Transgender people are not cross-dressers. The whole point is that they aren't easily classified as either gender. The first part of this sentence is as fundamentally mistaken as saying intersex people have the wrong genitals.
`Is it healthier for families to follow the child’s lead, or to spare children potential humiliation and isolation by steering them toward accepting their biological gender until they are older?'
That is, is it better to enforce strict dichotomies of sex and gender just so we don't have to challenge them?
The latter two thirds is much better. It's probably no coincidence that this part is almost entirely composed of quotations from parents and progressive educators and the like.
November 30, 2006
An Untackleable American Hero
I'm sure most of us have seen that Madden '07 commercial with the guy getting tackled (in the game) over and over and over again. Well, the guy getting tackled is Dallas Clark and he didn't take too kindly to being destroyed over and over and over again in a nationally syndicated commercial. Fearing the wrath of a gynormous pissed off pro football player, the guys over at Rooster Teeth (the funny lads behind Red vs. Blue) decided to make amends with an apology and "director's cut" of the commercial to show Mr. Clark's true skillz. Funny stuff.
It's like a post, only easier
First read Hugo on Peter Singer (the professional philosopher most prominently associated in the contemporary imagination with the animal rights movement) coming out in favour of certain kinds of research on non-human animals. Then scroll down to my comment on the post, on Singer's consequentialism.
November 29, 2006
A Match Made In Heaven
Don't get me wrong, I *loves* me some Spiderman. The comics, the movies, it's all great, fun, comic book stuff. While I still love those classic characters of the Marvel and DC universii, it was more artsy stuff that got me back into comics after a decade sabatical brought on by the mediocrity of mainstream comics in the 90s. And, as any fan of Watchmen, Y: The Last Man, or Sleeper will tell you, a major motion picture just really isn't the best vehicle for the more serious dramatic series. Watching Supes punch guys can be fun for a couple hours, but you're not really going to get much of Sandman's depth without a series of Peter Jackson proportions and few, other than perhaps myself and a few other uber nerds, want to watch a 3-4 hour talkey movie.
So really, the announcement that Garth Ennis' landmark Preacher series will be coming to HBO as an original show was something of an inevitability. Hopefully the more serious, more adult comics on the Vertigo line (as well as those on Wildstorm, Mavel's Max, Image, etc.) will get the HBO treatment down the road. Yorrick Brown on the small screen. My fingers might break, I'm crossing them so hard.
So really, the announcement that Garth Ennis' landmark Preacher series will be coming to HBO as an original show was something of an inevitability. Hopefully the more serious, more adult comics on the Vertigo line (as well as those on Wildstorm, Mavel's Max, Image, etc.) will get the HBO treatment down the road. Yorrick Brown on the small screen. My fingers might break, I'm crossing them so hard.
November 28, 2006
Terminally In Iraq
Terminus is back kids! Well, those of us who knew Drew knew that it was only a matter of time, but it's still nice to see him back at his own place, under the old moniker.
His most recent post is his attempt to get back into the political side of things and, well, it seems like as good a time for me to wade back in as ever. He's talking about Iraq and what the hell we're supposed to do with the debacle that it's become. As he's said for a while now, he thinks we should pull out immediately. He dismisses the moral argument that we owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the mess we've made and dismisses even more readily, and rightly so, the President's argument that we can only lose if we leave. The latter is utter foolishness that wouldn't even be considered a serious position if it weren't the official position of the President. At this point I'm pretty sure he thinks the country is Ed Norton in Fight Club and he's scarring our hand with lye to show us how awesome pain is.
I'm not completely convinced that the former argument is as easy to dismiss. I know this is close to what so many self-important "serious centrists" have been saying for a while now, but what if we pull out and it gets much much worse. Darfur worse. It's entirely possible that the country could turn into, if it isn't already, a massive human rights disaster. Will we go back in then to stop an ethnic cleansing? Will the global community be willing to help? Putting aside whether we would be able to muster the political will to send troops back, is that something we'd be morally obligated to do? It's certainly hard for me to argue that we wouldn't. I've certainly condemned our lack of involvement in Darfur and I don't think I'd be able to weasel my thinking out of finding an obligation to get involved in a similar situation in Iraq, even if we just left. That being the case, is it better to stay if we would just have to come back?
All that being said, at this point it's mostly guilt talking. I never supported the war, but hey, we're all in this mess together and nobody should be above the guilt over what we've done. Still, it certainly doesn't look like we're making any headway on this problem and staying forever just isn't an option. An important issue in "sticking around" is the fact that we have, last I heard, built several large, permanent military bases in Iraq. Now, I didn't pay much attention to it at the time because it was just one ridiculous idea among a sea of ridiculous ideas, but I was under the impression that the US had closed down its bases in Saudi Arabia amid pressure from their citizenry and opted to make Iraq the military staging ground for US troops in the future.
Does pulling out mean eliminating those bases? If so, pulling out seems increadibly unlikely if that would leave us with no strategic outpost in the region.
If, on the other hand, we're just talking about troops patrolling Iraq it's also important to not that leaving "immediately" doesn't mean people drop what they're doing and run for the nearest chopper. It takes quite a while for a force the size of ours to pull out of the country; it just meanse we start preparing to leave now and do so as quickly as possible.
This has been an awfully rambly post, but hey, I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I've also been pulled away from writing this post at least four times which tends to unfocus things. I don't think the guilt over what we've done will ever go away, which increasinly makes me feel that my guilt is a bad basis for letting President Bush dump lye on us.
His most recent post is his attempt to get back into the political side of things and, well, it seems like as good a time for me to wade back in as ever. He's talking about Iraq and what the hell we're supposed to do with the debacle that it's become. As he's said for a while now, he thinks we should pull out immediately. He dismisses the moral argument that we owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the mess we've made and dismisses even more readily, and rightly so, the President's argument that we can only lose if we leave. The latter is utter foolishness that wouldn't even be considered a serious position if it weren't the official position of the President. At this point I'm pretty sure he thinks the country is Ed Norton in Fight Club and he's scarring our hand with lye to show us how awesome pain is.
I'm not completely convinced that the former argument is as easy to dismiss. I know this is close to what so many self-important "serious centrists" have been saying for a while now, but what if we pull out and it gets much much worse. Darfur worse. It's entirely possible that the country could turn into, if it isn't already, a massive human rights disaster. Will we go back in then to stop an ethnic cleansing? Will the global community be willing to help? Putting aside whether we would be able to muster the political will to send troops back, is that something we'd be morally obligated to do? It's certainly hard for me to argue that we wouldn't. I've certainly condemned our lack of involvement in Darfur and I don't think I'd be able to weasel my thinking out of finding an obligation to get involved in a similar situation in Iraq, even if we just left. That being the case, is it better to stay if we would just have to come back?
All that being said, at this point it's mostly guilt talking. I never supported the war, but hey, we're all in this mess together and nobody should be above the guilt over what we've done. Still, it certainly doesn't look like we're making any headway on this problem and staying forever just isn't an option. An important issue in "sticking around" is the fact that we have, last I heard, built several large, permanent military bases in Iraq. Now, I didn't pay much attention to it at the time because it was just one ridiculous idea among a sea of ridiculous ideas, but I was under the impression that the US had closed down its bases in Saudi Arabia amid pressure from their citizenry and opted to make Iraq the military staging ground for US troops in the future.
Does pulling out mean eliminating those bases? If so, pulling out seems increadibly unlikely if that would leave us with no strategic outpost in the region.
If, on the other hand, we're just talking about troops patrolling Iraq it's also important to not that leaving "immediately" doesn't mean people drop what they're doing and run for the nearest chopper. It takes quite a while for a force the size of ours to pull out of the country; it just meanse we start preparing to leave now and do so as quickly as possible.
This has been an awfully rambly post, but hey, I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I've also been pulled away from writing this post at least four times which tends to unfocus things. I don't think the guilt over what we've done will ever go away, which increasinly makes me feel that my guilt is a bad basis for letting President Bush dump lye on us.
November 22, 2006
A Bit Late
It seems like everyone's gotten over the election hoopla pretty fast, but I'm still feeling that warm sunny glow from finally winning a major election. In that spirit of ass kickery, here are two posts:
1) Found through Dan Brottman, a promise from Michael Moore to discouraged conservatives.
2) Found through Atrios, a band who seems to have completely missed the election. Granted, this was probably filmed and possibly released before the election, but these guys don't even seem to realize that Bush is on his way to having the least popular presidency of all time. I'd love to think this was satire, but it just doesn't have any moments of winking at the camera to let me know it's all a wonderful joke. Still, a catchy, if simple, tune.
1) Found through Dan Brottman, a promise from Michael Moore to discouraged conservatives.
2) Found through Atrios, a band who seems to have completely missed the election. Granted, this was probably filmed and possibly released before the election, but these guys don't even seem to realize that Bush is on his way to having the least popular presidency of all time. I'd love to think this was satire, but it just doesn't have any moments of winking at the camera to let me know it's all a wonderful joke. Still, a catchy, if simple, tune.
Martha Nussbaum, Frontiers of justice
You can read my review of Martha Nussbaum's latest book, Frontiers of justice, here (PDF).
November 18, 2006
Thinking about property -- Aquinas
I've been thinking about private property and moral obligation lately. We (by which I mean Americans, or possibly citizens of affluent countries in general, but not philosophers) tend to think that our moral theory needs to keep fixed the system of private property at the bottom of our system of production -- helping out the poor is all well and good, but unjustified taxation is theft, and so on. (Yes, your socialism alert should have just gone off.) Some Libertarians -- Nozick is a good example of this -- actually try to base a theory of political justice on our property system quite explicitly, talking about how every individual owns themselves. (Though doesn't Nozick also say that you're not allowed to sell yourself? It seems like nonfungible property is a contradiction of terms in our system of private property.)
But, of course, our private property system -- like our system of production -- is a relatively recent development. And it certainly wasn't taken for granted throughout most of the last century. If we (ethicists and political philosophers now) purport to give more-or-less universal standards of justice, it seems weird to think that we have to take the economic system of one particular historical epoch as fixed.
Here's a nice quotation from Aquinas, via Peter Singer:
That's ST II-II, q 68, art 7, trans by Dawson.
But, of course, our private property system -- like our system of production -- is a relatively recent development. And it certainly wasn't taken for granted throughout most of the last century. If we (ethicists and political philosophers now) purport to give more-or-less universal standards of justice, it seems weird to think that we have to take the economic system of one particular historical epoch as fixed.
Here's a nice quotation from Aquinas, via Peter Singer:
Now, according to the natural order instituted by divine providence, material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. Therefore the division and appropriation of property, which proceeds from human law, must not hinder the satisfaction of man's necessity from such goods. Equally, whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance. So Ambrosius says, and it is also to be found in the Decretum Gratiani: ``The bread which you withhold belongs to the hungry; the clothing you shut away, to the naked; and the money you buy in the earth is the redemption and freedom of the penniless.
That's ST II-II, q 68, art 7, trans by Dawson.
November 17, 2006
Friday Random Ten!!!!!!!!
Wow, it's been a looooong time since I did one of these, especially actually doing one on a Friday. So to refresh our memories, here's the deal: Load up itunes or your Rio MP3 player or whatever it is you use to listen to MP3s, set the thing to shuffle, random or whatever randomizes the songs, and then post the first ten songs it plays in the comments to this post. The only real rule is that your list be truly random and therefore you're not allowed to omit songs your embarrassed of or artists who inexplicably turn up more than they should. Most of the fun is seeing what weird tastes we all have and how crazy obsessed our computers are with Abba.
(Artist - Song)
1. Pink Floyd - Run Like Hell
2. Maker - Counter Earth
3. B.B. King - You Upset Me Baby
4. Colin Hay - Beautiful World
5. MC Chris - MC Number 2000
6. John Williams -Return of the Jedi Finale (editor: Whoo hoo! Vvvvvrrrrooowww vrrrrrrrwwoooooow...Fffffkkwwwiissshhhh!)
7. Quasimoto - Real Eyes
8. Prefuse 73 - Storm Returns
9. The Beatles - Come Together
10. The Allman Brothers Band - Jessica
Feel free to offer commentary on either my list, your own, or someone else's. I'm pretty stoked about my list. I mean, it's got Star Wars in it. Given the huge Library this is pulling from, it's weird that half the list is actually singles. Let's see your stuff!
(Artist - Song)
1. Pink Floyd - Run Like Hell
2. Maker - Counter Earth
3. B.B. King - You Upset Me Baby
4. Colin Hay - Beautiful World
5. MC Chris - MC Number 2000
6. John Williams -Return of the Jedi Finale (editor: Whoo hoo! Vvvvvrrrrooowww vrrrrrrrwwoooooow...Fffffkkwwwiissshhhh!)
7. Quasimoto - Real Eyes
8. Prefuse 73 - Storm Returns
9. The Beatles - Come Together
10. The Allman Brothers Band - Jessica
Feel free to offer commentary on either my list, your own, or someone else's. I'm pretty stoked about my list. I mean, it's got Star Wars in it. Given the huge Library this is pulling from, it's weird that half the list is actually singles. Let's see your stuff!
November 14, 2006
Women: The only way to save your marriage is by being a fawning twit and good consumer!
Oh, the MSN Lifestyle site. It has all the eye-rolling ridiculousness of the supermarket checkout magazine display, but it's free! This time around, one Lisa Lombardi has decided women need to be incredibly anxious about their perfectly comfortable and healthy long-term relationships. Let's see what important tips she's suggesting!
1. Praise him like a kindergartener for doing simple household chores. You know, the stuff he wouldn't notice you doing.
2. Exploit underpaid Mexican immigrants to get some extra alone time.
3. Take two minutes every day to worship and adore him, and question whether you're being obsequitous enough.
4. If you don't spend lots of money trying to live up to a standard of beauty only achieved by anorexic teenagers with the help of Photoshop, you forfeit your sexuality.
5. Women who criticize their men are unlovable shrews.
6. More fawning. I mean, really, go out of your way to give him everything he could possibly want, even if he doesn't actually want it.
7. Focus on what you would lose if you broke up. The answer is everything, because you're a helpless girl. While you're at it, evaluate your relationship in strictly utilitarian terms.
8. As his live-in sexbot, your most important obligation is to make sure he gets laid every single night. Why else would he put up with your incredibly servile female inferiority?
Oh, I suppose I should've mentioned that those are my titles for the entries on the list.
There are actually some good bits here and there, but I guess "maintain intimacy, both physically and emotionally" is a little short, and doesn't put enough pressure on women to carefully compare themselves to the patriarchy-approved fawning sexbot and good consumer standard.
1. Praise him like a kindergartener for doing simple household chores. You know, the stuff he wouldn't notice you doing.
Maybe you always say thanks when he does something huge, like backs up your computer files or cleans out the basement. But most days, we're guessing the ordinary contributions he makes barely register. "Over time, we stop noticing what our partner gives. His nice gestures become like wallpaper," says Levine. "We think, Of course he'll take the trash out. So we don't bother to say, 'Thank you.'"
2. Exploit underpaid Mexican immigrants to get some extra alone time.
"Buy some time together — literally," suggests Sanby. "Hire someone to take care of onerous tasks, like mowing the lawn."
3. Take two minutes every day to worship and adore him, and question whether you're being obsequitous enough.
Spend the time giving your man one good compliment ("Your new haircut makes you look hot") or sharing a moment that made you smile ("It was so sweet when you took Ethan out for a bike ride after dinner"). You can also use it as check in time: Ask him, "Anything you wish I were doing more of?"
4. If you don't spend lots of money trying to live up to a standard of beauty only achieved by anorexic teenagers with the help of Photoshop, you forfeit your sexuality.
By touching up those roots or slathering on a rich body lotion, "you stay connected to your sensual side" — meaning you'll stay connected to your sexual side, too, helping to keep up the intimacy and romance that makes love fun.
5. Women who criticize their men are unlovable shrews.
Viewing your love through a soft-focus lens, rather than one that plays up every last flaw, can have a magical effect on your relationship.
6. More fawning. I mean, really, go out of your way to give him everything he could possibly want, even if he doesn't actually want it.
We're talking really easy stuff: Buy his favorite kind of ice cream instead of the compromise flavor you usually drop in the cart. Offer him the extra pillow he always chivalrously gives you (yep, yank it out from under your head). Or, if you want to be even more generous, invite his crazy Aunt Maude over, because you know he loves the old nut.
7. Focus on what you would lose if you broke up. The answer is everything, because you're a helpless girl. While you're at it, evaluate your relationship in strictly utilitarian terms.
Just having a partner has so many perks — from the profound ones, like having someone to talk to late at night, to the practical ones, like having someone else to kill those water bugs late at night. By valuing those fringe benefits, you can't help but feel good about him.
8. As his live-in sexbot, your most important obligation is to make sure he gets laid every single night. Why else would he put up with your incredibly servile female inferiority?
If you want to show your guy how much you appreciate him, get hands on, advises marriage therapist Betsy Sanby. "Being touched makes men feel loved in a way that words can't," she explains.
Oh, I suppose I should've mentioned that those are my titles for the entries on the list.
There are actually some good bits here and there, but I guess "maintain intimacy, both physically and emotionally" is a little short, and doesn't put enough pressure on women to carefully compare themselves to the patriarchy-approved fawning sexbot and good consumer standard.
November 10, 2006
Oh, South Bend!
And here I was worried you weren't going to provide me with the entertaining, mid-grade mass insanity that so characterized the small town in which I grew up.
Fortunately, today you vomited one Edward G. Sara onto your local daily's op-ed page. Ladies and gentlemen, watch in amazement as Mr. Sara argues that Roe v. Wade -- and not misogynists with guns -- is directly responsible for the recent rash of tragic shootings. Then oooh and ahhh as he follows up by proposing that the solution is more guns and more patriarchy. It's a spectacle not to be missed!
This one is pretty cool, though. And not in the 'Wow. Seriously? He said that?' way.
Fortunately, today you vomited one Edward G. Sara onto your local daily's op-ed page. Ladies and gentlemen, watch in amazement as Mr. Sara argues that Roe v. Wade -- and not misogynists with guns -- is directly responsible for the recent rash of tragic shootings. Then oooh and ahhh as he follows up by proposing that the solution is more guns and more patriarchy. It's a spectacle not to be missed!
This one is pretty cool, though. And not in the 'Wow. Seriously? He said that?' way.
November 09, 2006
Pasta With Greens
[No picture because I ate it too fast. Maybe tomorrow!]
The guiding theme behind these recipes is (usually, at least) to find things pretty much anyone can make if they have a minimally-equipped kitchen. This time, that's especially true: this recipe requires no culinary skills whatsoever. If you can boil water and use a timer, you can impress a date with Pasta With Greens. Plus, it's totally vegan.
Pasta
Pick something long and stringy -- spaghetti, thin spaghetti, or linguine are all good. Angel hair is a bit too sticky for my taste, but it would also work. To make enough for two people, make an O with your thumb and first finger, and fill the O with pasta. (Use a little more for linguine.) Japanese soba or buckwheat noodles would also work; note that buckwheat noodles only cook for about three minutes, so you'll have to fiddle with the precisely order and times given below.
Greens
Bagged, precleaned, fresh greens are certainly more convenient than the unwashed sort. Avoid frozen! Spinach, Swiss chard, and turnip greens all work really well in Pasta With Greens. Avoid hard greens, like kale -- as much as I love kale, it doesn't wilt when cooked, and won't mix with the pasta when tossed. For two people, you'll want about 6 cups of roughly chopped greens, which is about 1/3 of a bag.
"Sauce"
Olive oil: go for the expensive extra-virgin stuff here. A quarter cup of oil, for two people, will be just a little bit too greasy.
Garlic: 3-6 cloves of garlic, to taste and depending on size.
Seriously, that's all there is to the "sauce". Marinara's actually pretty easy, but remember, we're going for water-boiling level of skill here.
Garnish
These are all optional. For a little touch of extra colour and flavour, consider roughly chopped sun-dried tomatoes (check the "ethnic" aisle), coriander or sesame seeds (spice aisle), or a little grated lemon or orange zest.
Time: 20-30 minutes, depending on how fast the water heats up.
The guiding theme behind these recipes is (usually, at least) to find things pretty much anyone can make if they have a minimally-equipped kitchen. This time, that's especially true: this recipe requires no culinary skills whatsoever. If you can boil water and use a timer, you can impress a date with Pasta With Greens. Plus, it's totally vegan.
Pasta
Pick something long and stringy -- spaghetti, thin spaghetti, or linguine are all good. Angel hair is a bit too sticky for my taste, but it would also work. To make enough for two people, make an O with your thumb and first finger, and fill the O with pasta. (Use a little more for linguine.) Japanese soba or buckwheat noodles would also work; note that buckwheat noodles only cook for about three minutes, so you'll have to fiddle with the precisely order and times given below.
Greens
Bagged, precleaned, fresh greens are certainly more convenient than the unwashed sort. Avoid frozen! Spinach, Swiss chard, and turnip greens all work really well in Pasta With Greens. Avoid hard greens, like kale -- as much as I love kale, it doesn't wilt when cooked, and won't mix with the pasta when tossed. For two people, you'll want about 6 cups of roughly chopped greens, which is about 1/3 of a bag.
"Sauce"
Olive oil: go for the expensive extra-virgin stuff here. A quarter cup of oil, for two people, will be just a little bit too greasy.
Garlic: 3-6 cloves of garlic, to taste and depending on size.
Seriously, that's all there is to the "sauce". Marinara's actually pretty easy, but remember, we're going for water-boiling level of skill here.
Garnish
These are all optional. For a little touch of extra colour and flavour, consider roughly chopped sun-dried tomatoes (check the "ethnic" aisle), coriander or sesame seeds (spice aisle), or a little grated lemon or orange zest.
Time: 20-30 minutes, depending on how fast the water heats up.
- Fill a large (6 quart or so) pot 2/3rds up with cold tap water. (For those of you keeping track, that's about a gallon of water. Seriously, you want this much water for cooking pasta. And cold tap water because it contains less lead than water that's gone through your water heater, always a good thing.) Put it on your largest burner, and crank the heat up as high as it goes.
- While the water is heating, put about an inch of water in the bottom of a medium-sized saucepan with a lid. Put in a steamer basket and the greens. Cover and set on a medium-sized burner. Leave the heat off for now.
If you don't have a steamer basket, you can either boil and strain the greens (messy but simple; fill the saucepan halfway and wait to add the greens until after the water's boiling, in a couple of steps) or braise (only a little more advanced than boiling water, I promise, and nowhere near as messy as boiling) with half a cup of vegetarian vegetable stock (check the soup aisle) in a non-stick pan (borrow a large lid from a saucepan). Or just go buy a steamer basket. They're cheap, and steaming is a great, fast way to cook all kinds of veggies. (Just don't run out and buy it while the water's heating.) - Put the olive oil in your smallest pan, and let it sit on the smallest burner. Again, leave the heat off for now. Peel the garlic and put it through a press or smash with the side of a chef's knife and finely mince.
- Once the pasta water is boiling, add the pasta and several shakes from your salt shaker. Stir the pasta into the water and half-cover; leave the heat on full blast. Turn the heat under the greens to high, and the the heat under the oil to medium. Set a timer for five minutes.
- The oil should be hot after 60-90 seconds, depending on your burner. Add the garlic and cook, stirring every few seconds, until the smallest pieces are lightly browned, about 30-60 seconds. Be careful not to burn the garlic! Turn the heat under the oil off completely. Set the table, pour the wine, &c.
- When the timer goes off, turn the heat under the greens off completely and pull their lid off halfway. The greens should be wilted and fragrant, but not smell unpleasant. Reset the timer for two minutes.
- When the time goes off again, check the pasta. It's done when it's al dente -- that's Italian for "to the tooth", and means the pasta is cooked through, but not mushy. (Linguine will take a bit longer than spaghetti. Ignore the times on the pasta box; they're never remotely accurately.) Drain the pasta.
- To avoid a small puddle of oil creepy across the plate, I prefer to serve this in large bowls. Add pasta, then greens, and top with the oil, trying not to let too much of the cooked garlic end up in the bowl. Top with whatever garnish you're using and serve immediately.
- Unless you're terribly formal about such things, this goes well with both white and red table wines. (Chianti and merlot are always good choices, in my opinion.) Serve with a slice or two of French or Italian bread (since dinner itself was cheap, non-vegans could even splurge and get some of that heat-and-serve garlic bread at the supermarket), and to avoid garlic breath, I'd recommend a citrus sorbet for dessert.
The Results Are In
I passed the New Jersey Bar Exam. That's 2 for 2, baby. Watch out Stephen Hawking, there's a new brain on the block and he's writing "A Brief History of Kicking Your Ass." I leave you all now to party...perhaps to the extreme.
November 08, 2006
Send the freshman Dems a little reminder
One important reason many of them them were elected is their pro-choice views. Take thirty seconds and remind them.
Via Feministing.
Via Feministing.
And then it's business as usual, on the streets and highways that God built!
Via PZ.
By the way, this is an entirely accurate representation of academic philosophy. All the formal logic and plaid is just a facade to keep the job market open. Suckers!
Wow!
I'm nowhere near as wonky as many of my friends and associates, but what a night! I was up way past my usual insomniac's bed-but-not-sleeping time, updating the NYT election thingy. And what did I see?
- Almost a complete reversal of power in the House; Republicans had 232, and now Democrats have 230.
- The Senate hangs in the balance, dependent upon recounts in Montana and Virginia. Both have a Republican incumbent who lost to their Democratic challenger by less than half a percentage point. If the results stick and Lieberman doesn't defect and caucus with the Republicans, Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the first time in I can't remember how long.
- And if, on top of that, Democrats finally get their act together, they should be able to wrest a lot of power back away from Bush in his final two years in office. Sadly, I still think this is the biggest if.
- More broadly, Amanda identifies signs of some very positive cultural trends: the South Dakota abortion ban lost, as did a weird parental notification (not consent) proposition in California; Virginia Senator George Allen's campaign was seriously harmed (though perhaps not irretrievably) by gross racism. Check out the full list!
November 06, 2006
Another one to sell to the alumni
Washington Hall, in the foreground, is actually a theater building of some sort; the ND Basilica is on the other side of the Golden Dome, and you can't see it in this shot. Still, this is the sort of schmaltzy crap alumni pay out the nose for at the Bookstore.
I forgot to make a note of the date, but based on the leaves, this was probably taken in mid-September, 20006.
November 03, 2006
November 02, 2006
In honor of the first Lake Effect snow of the year
Two shots from last December. The internet says less than an inch of accumulation this time, which is pretty typical for Lake Effect snow (the flakes are big and fluffy and pack down pretty tightly once they're on the ground), so we probably won't see anything this dramatic for a little while longer. But still, SNOW!
I honestly have no idea where exactly this is; I can't tell which building that is.
Very Cold Jesus. (It's a weird statue in the first place, because it's like 3/4 of life size: Jesus is only about 4 feet tall.)
I honestly have no idea where exactly this is; I can't tell which building that is.
Very Cold Jesus. (It's a weird statue in the first place, because it's like 3/4 of life size: Jesus is only about 4 feet tall.)
De facto campaign promises
Big-D Democrats, take note!
There was a piece in Harper's a few weeks ago outlining a concrete and nuanced plan to end the occupation of Iraq. The core notion was that the money we're pouring intomercenaries armed escorts and cronyism no-bid contracts would be much more efficiently spent rebuilding the Iraqi police force and utility infrastructure. Marshall Plan-esque grants to Iraq over the next year would achieve a lot for less than the occupation is costing us now.
The key assumption here is that much of the momentum driving the country into civil war is over the American military presence, so that, if we withdraw in the right way, much of the conflict will simply evaporate. I don't know enough about the situation in Iraq, but assumption could be a dangerous one -- certainly the ethnic conflict stirred up by the British in Rwanda didn't just evaporate in the decades after decolonialization.
I suspect we really are doing far more harm than good in Iraq, and wasting lots of money and lives in the process. But, as bad as things are now, any plan for withdrawal must look seriously at the possibility that they would only get worse.
A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress next Tuesday and say Republicans will maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they hold on to power on Capitol Hill, according to the final New York Times/CBS News poll before the midterm election.
There was a piece in Harper's a few weeks ago outlining a concrete and nuanced plan to end the occupation of Iraq. The core notion was that the money we're pouring into
The key assumption here is that much of the momentum driving the country into civil war is over the American military presence, so that, if we withdraw in the right way, much of the conflict will simply evaporate. I don't know enough about the situation in Iraq, but assumption could be a dangerous one -- certainly the ethnic conflict stirred up by the British in Rwanda didn't just evaporate in the decades after decolonialization.
I suspect we really are doing far more harm than good in Iraq, and wasting lots of money and lives in the process. But, as bad as things are now, any plan for withdrawal must look seriously at the possibility that they would only get worse.
November 01, 2006
Bad philosophy still makes my head hurt
This is what happens when smartass atheists who've read too much analytic philosophy try to talk religion. Only analytic philosophers could misunderstand pantheism this spectacularly:
The metaphysics here is just terrible (bad philosophy of time, worse philosophy of causation), but metaphysics is pretty much always terrible IMO. The fact that someone with a BA in philosophy equivocates on "everything" so egregiously is downright embarrassing. (For the equivocator, and for the faculty that actually let him get away with a BA.)
Bad philosophy of science is also embarrassing:
Anyways, here's the thing. When trying to argue with theism (or pantheism or what have you; anything, really), you can't throw a smarmy little syllogism at the particular definition that's offered up. Good philosophy has to start with charitable interpretation of one's interlocutors. And charitable interpretation means giving them the benefit of the doubt: assume they're reasonable people doing their best to articulate a difficult idea. Once you have a good, solid understanding of, eg, what Aquinas means when he says that God is the being whose essence is identical with its existence -- including why this definition is supposed to be a good one -- then it's time to tear it to pieces.
What we see in this thread isn't philosophia or dialektikos; it's eristikos.
So if God = Everything then Everything = God. If I am a ‘thing’ and ‘every | thing’ is God, then I am God. Now, if you are saying that ‘Everything’ is the sum total of ‘every | thing’, then I’m a part of God, sure, but that then brings up this question: Did God create himself?
The only answers are ‘yes’, in which case explain to me how that’s logically possible, or ‘no, God has always existed’, in which case you’re first assertion falls apart:
1Premise: God is Everything
2Premise: God has always existed
Conclusion: Everything has always existed.
1Premise: Everything has always existed.
2Premise: If something has always existed, it’s infinite.
Conclusion: Everything is infinite.
1Premise: Everything is infinite.
2Premise: I am a part of Everything.
Conclusion: I am infinite.
So if God is Everything, then I am infinite.
The metaphysics here is just terrible (bad philosophy of time, worse philosophy of causation), but metaphysics is pretty much always terrible IMO. The fact that someone with a BA in philosophy equivocates on "everything" so egregiously is downright embarrassing. (For the equivocator, and for the faculty that actually let him get away with a BA.)
Bad philosophy of science is also embarrassing:
In order to accurately define God, one must not believe in the existance of God. This gives what scientists call “objectivity.”
Anyone who is a scientist and asks a theist what God is and then denies or challenges the answer is no scientist. This is because scientific thought looks at a differant perspective than do theistic thoughts. From the perspective of a theist (not all apply to all beliefs), god is. God is the creator, the magical everything and nothing that binds us. God is life after death and a meaning to it all. That’s a fact of a perspective. Trying to turn that into science is illogical just like taking a metaphore litterally is illogical.
Anyways, here's the thing. When trying to argue with theism (or pantheism or what have you; anything, really), you can't throw a smarmy little syllogism at the particular definition that's offered up. Good philosophy has to start with charitable interpretation of one's interlocutors. And charitable interpretation means giving them the benefit of the doubt: assume they're reasonable people doing their best to articulate a difficult idea. Once you have a good, solid understanding of, eg, what Aquinas means when he says that God is the being whose essence is identical with its existence -- including why this definition is supposed to be a good one -- then it's time to tear it to pieces.
What we see in this thread isn't philosophia or dialektikos; it's eristikos.
More evil
[T]o be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.
So, according to a Maryland appellate court, rape is bad because it's a form of property damage -- and once your property isn't a virgin anymore, it's basically too worthless to be damageable. When was this appalling opinion handed down?
(a) 1794
(b) 1877
(c) 1942
(c) The day before yesterday
Answer below the fold!
Of course the answer is the day before yesterday (pg 32).
I think I'm saving this one; it's a fantastic example of how some really nasty notions about sexuality are incredibly pervasive, and it would be good to have students read this along with some radfem material from a couple decades ago.
Via Amanda, who has links to discussions at feministing, feministe, and Broadsheet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)