A Couple 360 Links

First up we have a review of NHL 2k6 over at Evil Avatar. I was pretty worried about this game because several of the reviews of the Xbox/PS 2 version, which came out a couple months ago, were pretty lackluster. Evidently a lot of the bugs the pulled the previous versions down have been fixed for this one and the review makes it sound like this should be a fun version. On the other hand, despite a couple minor graphical upgrades it does seem like this is still the game designed for the previous generation and not so much for the 360. Still, it's sort of what we should expect from a title released on so many platforms. Gun isn't the prettiest game on the 360, and that pretty obviously stems from the fact that it was designed to run on inferior machines, but it's still fun on the 360 and I'm sure that will be the case with NHL 2k6. Next year I'm sure we'll get a much better version, but this will hold us over for now.

The first Xbox brought a lot of former PC gamers (myself included) back to the console realm, and with them the modding subculture that has been so big in the PC world the last few years. Still, it's really impressive how quickly they've brought this over to the 360. Now, I've never been keen on all of the mods out there, particularly adding windows to your machine, but some of this stuff is pretty awesome. I'm especially interested in the adding in of extra hard drives to store movies and music on.

Yes, I'm procrastinating

All treatments of Anselm's ontological argument (see link below) include a premise or inference along the lines of the following:

If the concept G is not instantiated by some real thing, then we can construct a 'greater' concept, G+, which is G 'plus' instantiation.

The standard objection to this inference is that there is no solid criteria that permits us to call the consequent concept, G+, 'greater' than G. My objection, by contrast, is that even if some kind of standard of 'greatness' is granted, G+ can only be formed if G is of a certain kind of concepts, and there is no non-question-begging way of guaranteeing the G in question is of the right kind.

For example, consider the concepts 'virtue' and 'cat'. We can take 'cat' to be of the right kind: 'existant cat' (or 'is a substance that is a cat') is, pace Kant, a perfectly legitimate concept. However, 'existant virtue' (or 'is a substance that is virtue') is illegitimate: virtue, in and of itself, is not some thing or some stuff! While we can say 'that thing is a cat', it would be absurd to say 'that thing is virtue'.

Hence, Anselm's argument plays on an equivocation, and an admittedly briefly survey of the literature suggests my recognition of this equivocation in the context of Anselm's argument is novel; however, as this doctrine is the central logical thesis of Aristotle's Categories, it can be used to target Anselm directly without danger of anachronism.

An Alito Post

The Alito nomination has been on a low simmer for a while now, which isn't quite as exciting as the Roberts or Miers nominations but has given us a little while longer to ponder him as a person and the process in general. Check below the flip for the rest...

So here's an article about how Alito was a member of a Princeton alumni organization that had a particularly racist and sexist bent. Mostly it seems like the organization was founded in the early 70s after Princeton started admitting more than token numbers of women and minorities because some of the crusty white dudes didn't like the change. They published a periodical espousing these ideas as well as several shadier tactics to make their ideas known. Alito was a member of this organization and when he applied for a government job in '85 he was comfortable enough with his membership to list it on his resume. He was born in 1950, so in '85 he was 35 years old.

So my question to you readers is, how much, if at all, do you all think this should matter? Is it far enough in the past to forgive? Were times different enough back then that this isn't a big deal? On the other hand, does this rise to the level of being something that you think should kill, all on its own, his nomination? What bearing, if any, does this have on whether you think he could do a good job as a judge?

Now, I know it's easy to jump to your conclusion mat if you already have an opinion on Bush's nominees generally, but I also hope we get some discussion of how much stuff like this should matter when we're confirming Supreme Court nominees. The bottom line is that even though law nerds like myself tend to really get jazzed up about these sorts of things the Supreme Court affects all of your lives in material ways and we should all be at least as interested in getting good justices as we are in getting good presidents.

Linked without comment because I have a busy afternoon

Lance Mannion: They paid for this police force and by gum they're going to use it!

What Santorum wants is for a lot more cops to start pulling over a lot more of us and write a whole lot more tickets. This is something he doesn't dare say, it's probably something he doesn't even dare think, but it is what he wants.

It's what all these 'family values' and 'culture war' conservatives want.

Their problem is that since Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party has adopted a Populist pose and Populist rhetoric and Populists don't like cops because they know that traditionally the cops have been owned by the Rich and Populists don't like the Rich. Which ought to mean that Populists shouldn't like Republicans. But the Republicans have spent spent 40 years bad mouthing big government and making the case that it's Liberals who want to tell everybody what to do, what to think, and how to live their lives, and they've done a good job of convincing a large chunk of the country that the Republican Party isn't what it is, a party of rich people who like calling in the cops.

So they can't say what they want without calling attention to the fact that it is they and not the Liberals who want to boss everybody else around.

This is why Santorum's rhetoric turns to mush when he is asked to stop yelping about all the threats to the family and America's general fine and dandyness and make some specific proposals for dealing with those threats.

Double standard, doubletalk, doublespeak, double-think, double-cross---The Republican Motto.

Via Pandagon.

And now I'm off to refute the ontological argument! (If I remember and have time, I'll post a precis tonight.)

I'm Not Dead!

Yeah, it's been a while, eh? Well, see, I had a big paper to write, and then, uh, I just kind of took the Thanksgiving weekend off. Anyhow, finals are coming up in a couple of weeks, but hopefully I'll post up a couple of things here or there to amuse you all.

"I am just a stranger, in a promised land / I am only learning a game with the rules I don't understand"

Democratically elected prime minister of Iraq hates freedom

Why else would he spread anti-war propaganda like these?

Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.

'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'

Seriously, why did we start this fucking war? At this point, it seems it was either (a) stop Saddam from developing WMDs he wasn't developing, or (b) replace a repressive thugocracy with a repressive thugocracy.

Via Pandagon.

I thought I was going to throw up

when I read this:

Actually, the only thing that makes me consider rape to be as awful as it is IS the possibility of life, and also STDs. In of itself, while it can be fairly painful, is not that much of a big deal. Certainly, it’s trespassing against your property and could result in great bodily harm, and you have the right to defend yourself, but mostly it’s psychologically damaging more than anything else.

but then I read this and had to stop for a couple minutes to keep it from really happening:

He said she said is worthless. In the middle east a woman needs a Man as a witness to charge another man with rape. Women are not smart enough to realize what they are doing to innocent men.

Rape in this country, in many places, is a worse crime than murder. What’s striking is that there are only 15k convictions for 85k accusations. It has the lowest conviction rape of any major crime. Which is scarey and tells us that women are not capable of making decisions on their own.

Of course, we can't have just misogyny; we need to misandry, too, in the form that only the patriarchy can offer:

It’s been particularly interesting to see how my friends who are single, non-feminist career girls are beginning to get very angry at their feminist forebears, as they begin to realize to their shock and horror that the mysogynistic neanderthals were telling them the truth all along. Men don’t give a damn about degrees, don’t care at all about a woman’s career and tend to see these things as a threat, not to themselves, but to the possibility of a romantic relationship.

The two key things that too many women fail to grasp with regards to relationships is that men simply don’t think like women, and that the sell-by date is about 32 when it comes to dating men your own age.

There's more. A lot more. And it's all as fucking disturbing as hell.

Logical fallacies in real life: affirming the consequent

The logical fallacy called affirming the consequent has the following form:

1. (Hypothesis) If P, then Q
   
2. (Hypothesis) Q
   
3. (Conclusion) P

Here's a simple argument to illustrate the fallacy:

1. If I go on a 20-mile bike ride, I will be tired.
   
2. I am tired.
   
3. Therefore, I went on a 20-mile bike ride.

The argument is fallacious because P need not be necessary for Q to come about.

Here's a real life illustration. P would be something like 'the Left supports the Enemy' while Q might be 'the Left is critical of the war' or 'the Enemy wins the war'.

This interview cannot be read without coming to the conclusion that the Left was aiding and abetting the enemy back then, and they are doing it again today. Period.

For lots of examples of logical fallacies (not to mention sexism, racism, and a nasty temper), read this one, too.

Link dump

Well, hopefully everyone had a delightful time yesterday, celebrating that great vice known as gluttony. Or working, if you happen to be visiting our humble little site from outside the US. My holiday was quiet but a lot of fun; unfortunately, I forgot to take pictures of any of the excellent food I made, so you'll have to wait a while to find out how to make acorn squash au gratin. Today I'd like to offer you the backlog of interesting links I've accumulated in the past week. In theory, regular blogging will resume Monday.

Pandagon: Getting approval

Hugo: A post on dating advice and self-transformation

Hot Girl-on-Girl Action (about female characters in video games)

Echidne: From My Mailbag

NYT: In setback for Bush, Congress fails to pass his proposals

Propaganda from NYU administration about the GA strike. And a somewhat less biased news article about the strike. There are several good links in the discussion at the bottom, including this essay from a couple years back.

DED Space's misogynist quot[ation] of the week

Feministe links to and comments on this article, from an student newspaper for Notre Dame and St. Mary's (a women's college just across the road from ND). This is part two.

Feministe comments on the increasing number of women changing their last name upon marriage. Amanda talks about this, too.

Hugo has some thoughts on girls and lust. No, not like that! Get your mind out of the gutter.

Can't Staff of Ra?

because "Staff of Ra" is a verb now. Perhaps the acronym SoR ("soar") will catch on among all the cool kids, and then we'll have people from around the world wondering why the hell we're having lives and doing things instead of incessant blogging the latest on John Robert's "Say hello to MY Chief Justice" boxer-briefs.

Ahem. Sorry about that. Technical difficulties. Yeah, that's what happened.

Many/several people seem to be having severe problems viewing the blog using Internet Explorer, with only about 1 1/2 posts showing up, and no sidebar. Unfortunately, there's roughly jack shit that we can do about this on our end. Until blogger fixes things, we recommend using Firefox if at all possible. Hell, we recommend using it even if you aren't having this problem: it's a far superior browser to IE, especially if you try out some of the nifty extensions. If you can't install Firefox at work because you don't have Administrator privileges on that computer, we recommend you talk to your IT people and have them put it on for you.

More Fun With Google

Promoted from the comments, thanks to Dan we have more fun with Google courtesy of Master Ninja.

Manners and Anthropology

Manners and Anthropology
By Andrea McIntyre

"Civility is particularly due to all men; and remember that no provocation whatever can justify any woman in not being civil to every man; and the greatest woman would justly be reckoned a wench if she were not civil to the meanest man."

- Lady Chesterfield

Politeness, involving the manners of ladies and gentlemen, is an unfortunately lost art. We have abandoned civility for the naval gazing, narcissistic, hedonistic, humanistic philosophies that urge us to express our feeling on every occasion, to be emotionally "authentic." I am convinced that only a fool speaks what is on her mind at all times without regard for the effect that the expression of her thought will have on others. For instance, the wise will always express pleasure at making an acquaintance, even when the pleasure is not actually felt. The prudent will always render due respect to the fiercer sex and exalt them upon the pedestal that they so richly deserve. Indeed, I am often vexed by the attitude and historical ignorance of modern patriarchy. It seems that many men know little, if anything, about the etiquette of the past. Too many accept uncritically that the plight of men has always been so dire and that their sex has been severely oppressed throughout the history of classical western culture. Thus, too many accept, again, uncritically, a lie. In fact, even in the mundane act of introduction, it was unacceptable to introduce any man to a woman, unless that woman were the wife of a particularly high diginitary, such as the queen. Instead, women were to be introduced in humility to men, and that, normally, only after his express consent, as men were to be given the higher place of honor and respect. It seems so quaint, antiquated, and foreign to us, but women really would curtsey to the fiercer sex. They would rise when a man entered the room and not sit until he saw fit to be seated. They would wait on him and cater to his fancies. Refined manners dictated that every man to be treated as a king in his own right, receiving the respect he deserved as the bearer of life and the producer of the little images of God we call erections. In the end, I believe manners are a matter of anthropology. If woman is not simply an intelligent animal, if woman is truly the bearer of the image of God, then she ought to speak properly and reservedly. She ought to hold her shoulders back and lift her chin in pride and dignity. She ought to dine with civility and refinement. She ought to seek pleasure in the greatest of human aesthetic achievements and avoid her baser instincts. Woman is truly a wonderful, glorious creature. She ought to act like it.

(A parody. Read the original, where he proudly calls himself sexist and patriarchal. No, I'm serious, he does it in the comments. He also gets pissy and censors my ass-in-itself when I use 'fuck objects' to describe the way aristocratic men regarded lower-class women during the periods he's romanticizing.)

The Great And Powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster

The mighty Spaghetti Monster stretches his noodley appendages to begin creation. Recently frequent poster Dan was touched by the Great One's pastastic tentacles, carrying him to a starchy victory in Octorber's Ra Points competition. All hail to his Holy Carbiness!

Edit: For those that aren't aware, here's a nice Wikipedia article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

He Is Victorious!

Another month, another winner. This month Grumlock the Great was felled by the mighty Dan. It was nice to see so many people getting up there in the points this month and Dan actually just squeezed out the victory, so a hearty congratulations to you all! When our reporters caught up to the mighty victor and asked about his victory, Dan said, "I just want to thank the flying spaghetti Monster for granting me the power to best all the opposition." Check below the fold for the final point totals.


Dan 140
Grumlock 130
Joy 120
Jamie 90
Sarah 80
Jay 70
Jenna 60
Meghan 55
Manda 40
Andy 25
Yelladog 10
Ok.nowwhat 10

Fun Google Hits

Another Fun With Google Hits post, which will of course just make those bizarre search terms all the more likely to hit again. But hey, I need hits. I suppose I could rely on posting pictures of pretty ladies, like some people, but I'm trying to maintain a certain level of class 'round here.

Here are the most interesting search terms that brought people here recently. To those of you finding yourself here by mistake, I'm sorry I don't have what you're looking for. Actually, given some of the terms that have brought people here over the last year, I'm really not.

1. "feminists for life bugmenot
2. "synonym for evangelize"
3. "bat shit crazy"
4. "Squanto headpiece clip art"
5. "rape culture"
6. "Kant and ESRB"
7. "My parents hate me"
8. "adjunct faculty"
9. "accidents involving dress shoes"
10. "Juvenial"

"You're such an inspiration for the ways
That I'll never ever choose to be
Oh so many ways for me to show you
How the savior has abandoned you"

Now Who's Getting Thrown Down The Well?

Kazakhstan is attempting to grab comedian Sacha Baron Cohen by the horns for portraying their country as a bunch of drunks who "pretend to be married" with their sisters. Thanks, and points, to Anne for the link.

And for you law nerds out there, or people that really want to see the stupider side of law school, here is a spinoff of the classic Overheard In New York but for law school. Points to Patrick for the link.

"This is not so much a holiday oriented song / as it is an exclamation of dismay at the sight of a beautiful woman"

Nerd Post

Law school buddy Joe sends us this cool link of a guy beating Super Mario 64 in twenty minutes. That's damn impressive, even though I never actually played the game. Damn impressive indeed. 15 Ra points for Joe!

"You hold on to love that's gone
Run a mile to see him smile
But you don't know he's door to door
Playin' you for the fool"

Also Starring Al Franken as Mothra And Jon Stewart As Gamora

You all know the deal: think up a caption for this picture of Billzilla destroying the Transamerica Pyramid and post it in the comments. Every entry gets 10 Ra points, the best one gets 15 extra. The contest ends when the picture drops off the front page.

Edit: I had misnamed the building as the Coit Tower.

Thanks again to Crooks and Liars again for the pic.

Picture Post To Follow

San Francisco voted on an initiative measure to ban military recruiting in public schools. I'm not going to take a position at this point on the substantive argument he's making, but what I do want to say is that the single greatest thing that pisses me off about blowhards like O'Reilly is that they take what could be a legitimate arguement and throw it out the window in favor of saying something crazy, like he does here.

While I'm at politics, here's a piece written by John Cusack about Iraq, Republicans, Dems, John Stewart, and Dr. King. It's a touch on the ranty side for me, but it's an editorial so it's not that far off the reservation and still much more informed and articulate than I usually expect out of celebrity political commentary. So good on you John.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars for that links.

"Watch me / Fading / I'm losing / All my instincts / Falling into darkness"

Ra Points Update

While we wait for the quote from last month's winner, here's an update on this month's contest thus far. I know I haven't exactly given you all lots of opportunities to earn points lately, but I'll try to put something up today to get you some points and you're always welcome to some free points by commenting to a post. Check after the flip for the points update.


Dan 20
Joy 45
Jay 30
Grumlock 30
Kryssa 30
Meghan 10
Rob 10
Sarah 10


"tripped over a dog in a choke-chain collar
people were shouting and pushing and saying
and when i traded a smoke for a food stamp dollar
a ridiculous marching band started playing"