The internet is a sham.

The U2 Fire Division

I just saw this video of U2 and The Arcade Fire performing Joy Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart." Be warned that the video is pretty shaky because it is hand-held, but the sound quality isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Bono sounds convincingly like Ian Curtis, which is a little surprising. As is typical when two full bands are on the same stage, there are a lot of extraneous members hanging around playing extraneous instruments (think of the gluttony of Temple of the Dog). This recording has the unmistakable feel of an impromptu "let's play a cover" decision and you can see the backup singers repeating the chorus an extra time and laughing about coming in at the wrong time. I'm not sure what I actually expected from the performance, but if for nothing but novelty value, I think this is one worth checking out. Oh yeah, and I like Régine Chassagne's boots. A lot of the comments about this are negative, but I don't really think it should be compared with the original so much as seen as an homage. (Although, when a band releases a cover on one of their records, I consider it open season to compare and criticize against the original version.)

Shooting the messenger (but missing): dishonest argumentation
I came across an article, written by a Professor David Schaefer (Political Science - Holy Cross), complaining about an anti-military recruiter organization called the "Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools." Upon first glance, I can't imagine why anybody would find a group who proposes that perhaps 14-18 year-old high schoolers are not quite mature enough to decide whether they should join our armed forces objectionable. High school students have impartial guidance counselors, teachers and their parents to help them decide what they should do upon graduating, so if our point of reference is the best interest of the students, it doesn't seem as if they need the military recruiters to guide them. It seems much more likely that the military recruiters choose high schoolers precisely because many students are impressionable and easier to convince. Professor Schaefer must surely realize this, so he does not bother to attack the reason why a group might attack military recruiters in our school districts; instead, he attempts to divert the reader's attention with an ad feminam attack against Arlene Inouye, a spokeswoman for the anti-recruiter group, that can only be taken as a cynical rhetorical device (from a man who teaches philosophy, no less). Not willing to address the elephant in the room (recruiting teenagers still in high school is basically an attempt to swindle students who don't know any better into enlisting to be shot at in Iraq), Professor Schaefer instead points out that Ms. Inouye recently published an article in an openly communist magazine:

During the [BBC/Public International Radio program "The World"] radio interview, Ms. Inouye identified herself simply as a speech therapist working in the Los Angeles public schools. There is another facet to her identity that she avoided mentioning, however, and it's easily discovered by using Google. Her article "Kick the Military Out of Your School! We Did in L.A. and So Can You!" was recently published in Dynamic Magazine, an organ of the Young Communist League. While the League's website does not disclose the nature of Ms. Inouye's role in the organization, "the militarization of our schools" and "the impact of military recruitment on high school students" are the major themes of the YCL's current "Realities of War Speaking Tour." The "Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools" thus sounds suspiciously like what used to be called a Communist front group.

He tries to impugn Ms. Inouye by insinuating the she has lied about her background (because in Professor Schaefer's world, apparently, every spokesperson first identifies her political allegiances before addressing any issue). Realizing that he cannot actually prove that Ms. Inouye is a communist (and apparently not realizing that the specter of the red bogeyman isn't as terrifying today as it once was) he points to phrases in her argument that are similar to the Young Communist League's current platform as evidence that she must be a communist. I have not read any of Professor Schaefer's academic writing and I cannot comment on it, but I can only imagine that it is not as shoddily argued as this small piece. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that he is making an intellectually dishonest argument first by attacking the messenger rather than the message and second by not even making that attack an effective one.

Labels: academia, education, military, music, philosophy

posted by Afshin @ 6:35 AM