So several years ago, the Rutgers radio station (WRSU) had a contest. I don't remember what I did to win it, but somehow I did win it. And the prize they were supposed to give me was all of Mary Lou Lord's records up until that point.
So I never got my records.
I was bitter. Even though I really liked her voice, I couldn't bring myself to buy any of the music that I was supposed to get for free. I ended up buying one of her EPs (Martian Saints) used a long time ago. I listen to it rarely, but it's really good, actually. I've listened to it twice this week. I'm still pissed I never got my free records. Now I'm trying to figure out if I ought to break the moratorium, give in, and just start buying them myself or what.
I know that the New York Times isn't particularly well-known as a publication of philosophical rigor, but this article in yesterday's issue just really irritated me with its pseudo-philosophical babble trying to tie together philosophical theories of mind, theological theories of soul, and evolutionary science in a neat little pop-science package:
The result is perhaps the strongest challenge yet to the worldview summed up by Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who divided the creatures of the world between humanity and everything else. As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," loses its force.
The big issue, of course, is that this completely misses Descartes' point. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, is the same as: I think therefore I exist. It simply means that if i were in a world where I couldn't believe a single thing that I perceived with any certainty (suppose I'm in the Matrix), I could still have access to one bit of knowledge: by virtue of the fact that I can think I must exist.
It's true enough that Descartes separated humans (as soul-owners) from other animals. But this particular quotation, apart from being sound bite–worthy, has nothing to do with Descartes' separation of humans from animals. Furthermore, the view that humans are unique has been universal in western thought since western thought has existed. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the Times can surely do better than this fluff.
Up until recently ( play or download mp3), Deborah Rodriguez has been congratulated as a conscientious activist for social change in Afghanistan. Her work in putting together a beauty school in Kabul where, up until a few years ago, the Taliban would publicly beat women for putting on makeup is just the sort of heartwarming story that Hollywood and American book publishers love.
In fact, they loved her story so much that Random House gave her an $80,000 advance for the book and there's a movie deal in the works.
And the plucky budding Afghan beauticians?
They get nothing. They get worse than nothing. Apparently, they claim that Rodriguez promised she would not publish photos of them because they live in a violent repressive society (remember how Islam is a religion of peace?) and they feared their lives would be in danger if it ever became public knowledge that they are running a beauty school. Sure enough, those photos did appear in the book—the book that has earned the Afghan women nothing—and they do now fear for their lives. And where's that warm-hearted made-for-Hollywood heroine from Michigan amidst all this? Long gone. She left Afghanistan last month. But she hasn't fully abandoned her friends:
Rodriguez says that she knows the women are angry and terrified—but that they should realize that things take time. She also claims the girls misunderstood what she promised them.
That's right, ladies . . . I mean girls, I know you're afraid because I knowingly endangered your lives after I promised I wouldn't, but you have to realize: they were giving me a lot of money! Surely you see that, right? And it's not like I've completely forgotten about you: I'm working really hard to get you out this mess, but these things take time. And of course I want to share some of my newfound good fortune with you:
She says she plans to give the girls a small part of the royalties from the book, along with 5 percent of her earnings from the movie Sony Pictures is planning.
The incredible gall of James Zumwalt's op-ed contribution in today's New York Times strains the limits of shamelessness. He claims that six Muslim imams who were singled out by "concerned passengers" (ostensibly because they looked "suspicious," i.e. Muslim) are intimidating good, honest, terrorist-fearing 'mericans by bringing suit against both the airline and the passengers who were clearly spooked by seeing "ragheads" onboard their plane. This is classic blame-the-victim rhetoric in which obviously the imams were asking for it! Far be it from to defend any religious leaders on grounds that they are "holy" men—but, come on! Really?
Witnesses described conduct that suggested something ominous might in fact be in the offing. The imams, the passengers reported, prayed loudly in the open terminal before boarding, sat in different seats on the plane from those assigned, positioned themselves near exits, asked for unneeded seatbelt extensions (which they then placed under their seats) and, most disturbingly, made anti-American comments.
This is all hearsay, but let's go through the list, anyway:
They prayed loudly? Must be terrorists.
They sat in different seats on the plane than those assigned? Only terrorists make mistakes when boarding planes. Or perhaps only terrorists prefer the better seat that seems to be unoccupied.
They positioned themselves near exits? Only terrorists prefer the roomiest seats on a plane. (See tip 2 in that link.)
They asked for "unneeded" seatbelt extensions? I got nothing for this one. Perhaps we could ask them why they needed these. "Unneeded" is a little presumptuous: I'm pretty sure Mr. Zumwalt wasn't there to confirm that they did not, indeed, need the extensions. Besides, what can you possibly do with seatbelt extensions that you can't do with a common belt, anyway?
They made anti-American comments? Never mind, that's the clincher. If you don't like everything 'merica does, you can just get out! We'll bring democracy to your country soon enough anyway.
Let's be reasonable. Suppose there were terrorists on a flight and they planned to hijack the plane or crash it into something. Would they dress up as Muslim clergy and behave in an attention-grabbing way? Or maybe our citizen-heroes just saw past their clever disguises and their subtle terrorist tactics. With a nation full of Jack Bauers, I think we can all rest easy and fly the safe blue skies.
In America, we have this way of overlooking the patently obvious. What is the American public's number one concern these days? Security. More specifically, terrorism. And what country is the bogeyman du jour? Iran. But let's just consider that perception:
Did the Iranians have anything to do with 9/11? No.
Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Madrid attacks? No.
Did the Iranians have anything to do with the London attacks? No.
Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Bali attacks? No.
Where did those attackers come from? Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt—basically Arab countries and Pakistan.
Were any of those attackers Iranian? No.
Do Iranians have any reason to fear us? Consider this map:
Notice those two bright red American-invaded countries on either side of Iran. Then remember all that "axis of evil" talk. Now think back to who has once already deposed Iran's democratically elected prime minister in favor of an autocratic king who ruled until he was overthrown during the revolution of 1979 (hint: it was us), who it was that armed Iraq in the first place (hint: it was us), and who it was that encouraged and directly supported Saddam Hussein's war on Iran (hint: it was us). Maybe they're afraid of us. And maybe they should be. Are they seeking nuclear weapons? Probably. They probably look over at their neighbor Pakistan, who has done much more to harm American interests and realize that Pakistan is an American "ally" because it's got the bomb.
So this sounds a little bit like a mock trial by ordeal to me. And people say history doesn't repeat itself!
The critique of Deltano's performance at Dominion High was conducted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. It included criticism of his decision to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of condoms against HIV by dangling a cinderblock over a male student's genital area.
("Christian Sex-Ed Lesson Criticized"—via)
My favorite part of all this is that some sick self-righteous (I mean, "pious") bastard actually gets paid (from tax dollars) to threaten to crush teenagers' genitalia.
I ran across this job posting on Craigslist in the SF Bay Area. I read it out loud just to confirm what it sounded like to me. Here is what I think it boiled down to:
I have a nebulous idea for a "company" that I want to run.
My company should be able to save the world, somehow.
I want you to "implement" my company for me. I'm just an "ideas" person. I need an "everything else" person.
And by "everything else," I mean even the rudimentary search engine-based research that I should have done the very first day I had this idea. That's your job.
Preferably, you can work for free.
If you can't work for free, can you work just slightly above the $7.50/hr CA state minimum wage?
Know any good venture capitalists?
Know any good clients?
Know any good programmers to build my idea?
Know any business development people to put together my business?
Oh, and I'll totally pay you back when the checks start rolling in.
Did I mention that I'm going to save the world?
But maybe I'm being uncharitable. Good luck to you, my friend.
"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," [undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas] Burns said Tuesday in an address to influential think-tank Gulf Research Center, based in the United Arab Emirates.
If you'll notice, the proper name of the Persian Gulf - with the operative adjective being "Persian" - is shortened here to just "the Gulf." America, my beautiful country on the opposite side of the globe with the Atlantic Ocean on its right side and the Pacific on its left, America telling the Persians that they should not have a say over the Persian Gulf . . . well, it chafes a bit, is all.
There's an article in Friday's New York Times about Senator Jay Rockefeller's (Democrat - West Viriginia) negative response to the Bush administration's rhetorical buildup against Iran. Here are some of the highlights:
Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the president.
"I don't think he understands the world," Mr. Rockefeller said. "I don’t think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does."
He added, "Every time he's read something he tells you about it, I think."
Does anybody disagree with this sentiment, any more? One of the good ways to have access to "reality" is to read about it, but since "reality has a well-known liberal bias," perhaps it's best to avoid reading altogether. Unless it's the "good" book.
Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said in response to Senator Rockefeller's comments that Iran was taking provocative actions both inside Iraq and elsewhere, and that American allies were united in efforts to end what intelligence officials believe is a covert nuclear weapons program inside the country.
Yellowcake. Cylinders. Mobile Labs. Centrifuges. Act two.
"It has been clear for some time that Iran has been meddling in Iraq, and the Iraqis have made the concerns known to the Iranians," Mr. Johndroe said.
Let there be no mistake: we (i.e. the Bush administration) really respect the concerns of the Iraqis and we don't like the idea that somebody (*cough* else *cough*) might "meddle" in that country.
He noted that the administration has said it would be willing to begin direct talks with Iran — which have not occurred since 1979 — if Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.
We stopped talking to them when they stormed our embassy and held our people hostage for 444 days. But we figure it might be time to set those differences aside . . . nah, we just busted up their consulate in Iraq. Booya!
Apparently, JCPenney has been selling dog-fur coats and, naturally, animal-rights activists are angry about it. That's fine, I suppose, but I wondered about this:
"We sold a lot of them during Christmas," said a saleswoman at a Penney store in North Carolina who spoke on condition of anonymity because she feared losing her job. "I hope people who bought those coats aren't animal-lovers. But I guess if they're wearing fur, they're not."
The implication of her statements is that she is, indeed, an "animal-lover." Perhaps I'm being speculative, but I bet she also loves the way animals taste.
It should also be clear that this would not have even been considered newsworthy if the fur trim on the clothing had actually been raccoon fur instead of dog fur. Apparently, "animal-lovers" are free to hate raccoons.
At times consciously, at times unconsciously, I have been censoring my music consumption. I've been using last.fm for about a year now and I think I've been too concerned with appearances. At first, I just tried to cut out classical music and podcasts (because I don't think they would really contribute to usage statistics that are meaningful to me - I want to know what people with similar pop music interests are listening to . . . if I want to listen to anything else, I can just ask Kara). But as time passed, I found myself stopping the last.fm plugin when I was listening to music that I thought would "taint" my statistics. I think this admission is probably more embarrassing than the music I listen to, but it needed to be said. So, ironically enough, I'm starting the plugin today with a song off Saves the Day's "Through Being Cool" record. And yes, that "sham" label applies to me. The truth hurts, sometimes.
This story about prison programs that are clearly (if not explicitly) designed to indoctrinate and convert inmates who - as the headline astutely points out - are a "captive audience" sickens me. If you want to know how Americans should be reacting to this, just try this simple mental exercise. Read the article and make a few replacements:
Replace "Christian" with "Muslim."
Replace "Christianity" with "Islam."
Replace "Christ" or "Jesus" with "Allah."
Now, tell me how the average American would react to such news. Imagine the outcry against the politicians who are lining up to support the current program if they supported the one in our mental exercise. That reaction (focus on it again) should be exactly the same as the reaction to the actual content of the article. Is it?
More than three years have passed since we invaded an Arabic-speaking country, but our own newly established embassy in Iraq only has thirty-three Arabic speakers - only six of whom are fluent! Way to go, 'merica. Well, at least our elected representatives have informed themselves (see kishkushim). Oh. Wait.
Does anybody understand why thisLos Angeles Times article's headline: "'Illegal' Transit Strike Puts New Yorkers Out in the Cold," has the word "illegal" in quotation marks? This isn't even an editorial, it's just supposed to be reporting on the transit strike. I thought the illegality of the strike was quite clear.
Sham update
Rocketboom mentioned that the link in my previous entry was being examined by Snopes, but the results were still inconclusive. Well, Kara pointed out today that conclusive results are now available. The French dude was not "online" dating his own mother . . . but the internet is still a sham.
Ernie was right about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Maybe I do give people the benefit of doubt too frequently. Now a whole bunch of sets on the Suicide Girls site have been censored. Instead, this is what you see:
But [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor [Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin] Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."
(Washington Post - "Recruits Sought for Porn Squad")
Every time I hear about groups like the "Family" "Research" Council (yes, "family" and "research" each get the bunny-ear treatment), I think back to the old adage about the enemies of my enemies and the friends of my enemies. And it looks like my enemies consider Alberto Gonzales a friend.
While Eshan continues to have great faith in the American ability to remain innovative, I have long maintained a much more pessimistic outlook. We are regressing: the engines of our innovation are faltering under a severe burden of ideology. In a nation where 42% of the population believes that "life has existed on Earth in its present form since the beginning of time," and another 18% believes that evolution is guided by an intelligent being, we are compelled, then, to put our hopes in the 26% who believes in evolution via natural selection (leaving 10% who simply do not know and another 4% who believe in evolution of some sort, but are not sure what the mechanism of evolution might be). It can be argued that 26% of the population is a large enough proportion to sustain our position as a leader in scientific innovation, but the proposal seems unlikely to me. The only reason we have not yet stumbled is because we import so much brainpower from the rest of the world, but as America becomes more hostile towards science, that stream will dry up, too. Throughout much of history, science and religion have not been mutually exclusive, but as we find ourselves reaching a point in science where it demands to be divorced from religion, more and more Americans are taking the wrong side. Since nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans are "open to" the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in our schools (and 38% want creationism taught instead of evolution), it's pretty clear that our children won't have a chance in the global market against children who are taught, I don't know, science.
Everybody agrees that intelligent technological life is a much greater leap, but it might be instructive to consider who is laying down bets on at least looking for it. Among the financial angels of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or SETI, have been people like Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft; the late Barney Oliver, William Hewlett and David Packard, leaders of Hewlett-Packard; Gordon Moore, the founder of Intel; and the novelist Arthur C. Clarke, who invented the idea of the communications satellite.
Earlier in this article, the author mentions that an "Intelligent Design" film was shown at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Let me say that again: the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History! I'm glad the article ends on a promising note for those who are excited at the prospect of extraterrestrial intelligent life out there, but I wonder if evangelists (and Catholics) are seeing this as a sign of "liberal bias" in the media. On a sidenote, it's too bad that Catholics can now be considered as part of the Conservative Crusade for Christ, I mean the Republican party.
Note: This post originally appeared on a now-defunct site on May 11, 2004.
I unapologetically supported the idea of going to war in Iraq. I never really believed in this whole WMD idea, but I thought the war was just on humanitarian grounds. From the beginning, I wished the UN had supported taking action against Saddam Hussein's regime; but despite their inaction, I still agreed with the Bush Administration's stance of unilateral force if necessary. In fact, I still hold Russia, France, and Germany indirectly responsible for much of the botched operation that has since ensued because it was clear from the start that their objections were based on political and cynical motivations rather than legitimate ones. I always had misgivings about the Bush Administration's ability to conduct this war properly; after all, Afghanistan was still left unfinished, and the timing of the Iraq war did seem somewhat questionable. But I was willing to let it slide: I thought we had a military that could handle a war on two fronts.
As it turns out, our military cannot handle the war adequately on either front. My cautious trust in the Administration was misplaced. I always had misgivings about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but I thought that Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell were reasonable men. Boy, was I wrong about Wolfowitz. If I've learned one thing from this affair, it's this: neo-conservatives are no more enlightened about the "real world" than anybody else. If anything, they seem to live in a fantasy world where America's superpower status is somehow magically omnipotent and needs not answer to anybody, including the American populace.
The war in Iraq could have been a just war. I thought I was seeing through rhetoric on both sides. On the left, the "no blood for oil" peaceniks just seemed too cynical to be right. On the right, the WMD threat did not seem credible. And so, I arrived at my conclusion based on moral reasoning: any dictator we remove is a good thing. If the UN wasn't going to live up to its role as the world's governing body, maybe America could fill some of the gap.
America has not filled this gap. Donald Rumsfeld has openly admitted that the tortures we have so far seen are only the tip of the iceberg. As far as the larger war effort, Rumsfeld's Pentagon has been woefully (perhaps criminally) unprepared for the occupation that was certain to follow an invasion. Colin Powell's strategy of overwhelming force, though more expensive, would have been the only realistic way to succeed in this war. I was amazed that Rumsfeld's invasion-on-the-cheap policy won the support of the White House. As a result of that policy, and other failings, this Administration has seriously damaged, if not destroyed, any chance of building a friendly, democratic Iraq.
If I'd known then what I know now, I never would have supported this war. I sorely overestimated the leadership ability of this Administration. Like many liberals, I hoped for an internal coup which would increase Colin Powell's influence. But that did not happen. And I will be the first to admit that I was taken in by the neo-conservatives. But I was wrong on nearly every front.
