the Greater Nomadic Council

The Folly of Learning

This afternoon we had a pretty interesting department seminar, with a presentation from our head of graduate studies, John (Durham) Peters ("Neither a commie, nor an elitist."). He pointed out that, first, most of what scientists, social scientists, and humanities scholars write in their lifetimes will plunge into the abyss, never to be seen again by human eyes, nor destined to have any impact whatever on the larger scheme of human existence. He also reminded us that, as teachers, most of what we say will inevitably be forgotten by indifferent undergraduates whose only goal is to hit the sweet spot between doing bong hits and studying so they can pass while having the best time possible. But it wasn't as bluntly nihilistic as my summary makes it sound - he pointed out that, by the same token, you never know what piece you're writing will win you a Nobel twenty years down the road, and you never know which of your hundreds of undergrads will suddenly develop a fascination with your subject matter. He described Universities, given the insanity and ridiculousness inherent in the very fact of their existence, as functioning as great storehouses of potential . . . they're kind of like boxes of chocolate, you see.

A Revelation

Grad school entails a lot of reading. I mean, I knew it was going to be much more than I had read in the past, but it's almost overwhelming. Not quite, but close.

Hmm... that seems too slight for my first post in a couple of days.

Ah well. I don't have anything else to say right now. Thankfully, I know you all eagerly await even my most asinine posts so this should suffice. I am still alive and enjoying school, but I have almost entirely lost track of current events as well as what day it is.

A Word on Plato

One of the things I find fascinating and appealing about Plato is the way his world view assumes an orderly, knowable universe, the existence and immortality of the soul, and other things that we would nowadays debate endlessly. I think the comfort inherent in an orderly universe is both part of his appeal and his strangeness, similar to that of religion (as I see it). Even coming from, for some moderns, a radically different perspective, he's still able to make convincing, imminently lucid arguments. Minor points, obviously, but these are the sorts of reflections I find much more enjoyable when shared. Otherwise they're just random comments lost in reams of notes.

Quotes From Plato

Here are two from "Phaedrus" that struck me this morning:

But if a man comes to the door of poetry untouched by the madness of the Muses, believing that technique alone will make him a good poet, he and his sane compositions never reach perfection, but are utterly eclipsed by the performances of the inspired madman.

And:

Pure was the light and pure were we from the pollution of the walking sepulcher which we call a body, to which we are bound like an oyster to its shell.

Now if I could only read Greek. I wish I had had someone force me to learn Latin and Greek from an early age so that I could already read these sorts of things in the original. As it stands, it will likely be decades before I can reach that point, if ever. I have to find the time to start learning them.

Cat Blogging

It must be nice...

...I feel the same way today. So lazy.

The Filthy iPod, It Plans

This New York Times article discusses the iPod shuffle feature (What?! It was just added in the 4th generation? What was Apple thinking?). Many people apparently believe their iPods can think:

Lucy Shaw, a social worker in New York, has stopped using Shuffle altogether. "It was totally not reading my moods," she said. It would play upbeat music when she was feeling low, and dark, somber selections when she was feeling upbeat. Furthermore, she said, her device had a penchant for picking songs containing four minutes of dead air followed by a bonus track - like Brian Ferry's "More Than This" (the song to which Bill Murray sings karaoke in "Lost in Translation," a bonus track on the film's soundtrack album).

Why do people insist on anthropomorphizing every device they own? Is it because they're incapable of even a basic understanding of probability and randomness? Or do they actually believe little demons inhabit those mysterious, electrical boxes? I do understand the impulse. I find myself noticing when my Rio Karma picks a song that's particularly apt for the current situation, but that doesn't lead to think it's "reading my moods." I don't know why I'm even complaining about this, though. It doesn't actually bother me that much. Maybe I should go take a nap.

MoveOn and 527s

Since Bush has such a massive advantage when it comes to campaign war chests, I tend to see Bush's argument that 527s shouldn't participate in the presidential campaign as unfair and misleading.

But by doing this, I seem to be compromising the ideal of campaign finance reform--that is, creating a more level playing field in terms of political speech. On the other hand, if we had a real public campaign financing system and a media bent toward emancipation rather than exploitation, then perhaps it would be possible to set up relatively fair rules.

In the real world, which lacks utopian reforms, I give MoveOn a large portion of the credit for revitalizing the Democratic Party. I trust MoveOn, considerably more than I trust Kerry, to continue fighting for my values. If Kerry should be elected, I want MoveOn ready to pounce as soon as he screws up. And when Kerry is unfairly smeared, I want MoveOn to be prepared to defend him.

Organizations like MoveOn seem good for the level of communication and education in America, and I trust that organizations on the Right will emerge to do the same thing for Republicans. Such entities could become a real remedy to the excesses of mass media democracy and runaway capitalism since they can organize boycotts, protests, and fundraising at practically no cost. Ecopledge is a similar kind of site with powerful potential to make a real difference.

If campaign finance reform means preventing MoveOn from engaging in the public discourse, I'm not sure I can continue to advocate campaign finance reform. For the future of campaign finance reform, I would look to the European example. That is, provide more matching funds rather than limit the money flowing into speech.

Edit: Matt Yglesias seems to on the same page, except he has apparently been sceptical of campaign finance all along.

The Holocaust and Enlightenment Rationality

I ran across an interesting passage in Anson Rabinbach's In the Shadow of Catastrophe.

Since for postapocalyptic thinking "Auschwitz" now signifies the point at which the project of modernity reveals itself fated to culminate in barbarism, contemporary postmodernist thinkers unquestioningly regard it as legitimate to collapse the logic of modernity with the most extreme manifestation of politically organized terror. The event thus condemns not merely the bureaucratic and administrative procedures of the man-made apocalypse, but the ethical, technological, and political structures of the modern world. As Zugmunt Bauman has argued, "modernity" harbored two hopes: a single, anthropologically invariant self-identical subject capable of fulfillment and the utopian aim of transforming society in the image of perfection. When a uniform ideal of existence was imposed on any community, the willful surrender of traditional moral conscience was sanctioned. In this view, totalitarianism was made morally and politically feasible by the various "projects" of social homogeneity and social identity endemic to the Western ideal of rational society.

Rabinbach goes on to call these views into question--pointing to the role of historical trauma or the tragic consciousness in this cynical/tragic sort of formulation.

Certainly it is true that Auschwitz would have been impossible without Enlightenment Rationality and its more extreme modern relatives. However, the Nazis were hardly an extension of Enlightenment liberalism, but rather an intensely anti-rational reaction to it, aided by the proliferation of technology and bureaucracy. It seems to me that attacking Enlightenment liberalism on the basis of the terror of its achievements is to engage in a similar nihilism that has led to the Anti-Red, Anti-American, Anti-Civilization position of the fascists.

That said, the Holocaust is a real historical warning against technological hubris. Social "evolution" does not necessarily come along with advancements in the mode of production and technology--indeed they could lead to the opposite.

The History Channel

I have a question--has the History Channel always been the War and Violence channel, or is this a recent development? Perhaps a result of post 9-11 supply and demand?

I like programs on war, guns, and terrorism as much as the next guy, but is this the fate of popular conceptions of history? Hero worship of the guys who firebombed Germany, nuked Japan, razed the South, and hunted down drug kingpins like dogs? Of course I grant that there is value in studying and recognizing these guys, but is this all we want to learn from history?

Is cable history, like cable news, just another form of adventure stories to keep the warrior's blood flowing fast?

Grammar Snobbery

One of my English professors has, um, professed himself to be a grammar snob (though I imagine they all are; it's a requirement) by pointing out that the phrase "one of the things that is always true" is incorrect. It should be "one of the things that are always true." Why do I bring this up? Not to mock my professor. He's actually an excellent teacher and a well respected writer and scholar. Instead, it's simply to set up this bit of similar, but funnier grammar snobbery from Gregg Easterbrook:

In the new Microsoft slogan -- "Your potential inspires us to create software to help you reach it" -- the antecedent of "it" is "software." So your potential inspires us to create software to help you reach software. This slogan must have gone through the Microsoft Word grammar-checker tool! Then again, the line does pretty much sum up Microsoft sales strategy.

Am I the only one who finds this funny?

The Nature of Political Argument

From Centerfield comes this parody of political discourse:

I am right, and you are wrong.

You are not just wrong, you and those like you are intellectually insufficient and morally suspect. Why do you hate our country? Think of the children. God said to tell you that he is not pleased.

Stop interrupting me while I'm shouting. Feel the crushing weight of my arguments, which are built on logic and constructed from facts that are sturdy and sound. You just whine about how you feel.

Your information is flawed because it came from a source I know to be aligned with the forces of darkness. I am able to parse the media and edit what I see for bias and spin, while you are a gullible sap who believes everything you see on the TV or read in that wholly discredited rag you just quoted.

I plan to memorize this for my next debate.

The Problem With Blogging

...is that it takes a lot of time. Fear not, this is not a prelude to my abandonment of the form, but as I've mentioned before, I expect my output to continue in its greatly decreased manner. Considering that I've already spent several hours at the computer today working on papers due tomorrow I lack the energy necessary to either do decent coverage of whatever political events happen to be going on right now, such as Cleland's picketing of Bush outside his ranch in Crawford (no doubt he's clearing more of that pesky brush his ranch seems so infected by), nor do I have the energy to write a relatively long and relatively obvious post about literature or culture. Maybe I'll post the short paper I'm working on right now (a close reading of an Elizabeth Bishop poem), but I seriously doubt anyone would care to read it as it's full of boring statements like "particularly interesting in these lines is the use of essentially the same image, that of stone, in two opposed ways to describe both the solid stillness of the iceberg and the flowing movement of the sea." Don't worry, that's just part of the first draft. I plan to make it much more jargon-laden and dull before I turn it in. All this is just a long way of apologizing for my reduced output while attempting to explain why it's likely to continue that way for the foreseeable future. Maybe this weekend, provided I've gotten far enough ahead on my reading, I can try to put up something a bit more substantial, but in the meantime, the blogosphere will have to make do with but a pale shadow of my former blogging self.

This Still Isn't Resolved?

So I go on an extended Internet hiatus (extended for me, someone used to 10+ hours a day of being online) and at the time whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not during Christmas is being discussed. I come back after almost two weeks offline and the same topic is getting debated:

The circumstances at least suggest that Kerry was indeed involved in a "black" mission, even if he had never explicitly made that claim. And why would he make such claims if he hadn't been? It was neither a glamorous nor a particularly admirable mission—certainly nothing to boast of.

But one thing is for sure: Lt. Kerry did not spend that Christmas Eve just lying around, dreaming of sugarplums and roasted chestnuts. He had plenty of time to cover the 40 miles from the Cambodian border to the safety of Sa Dec (he did command a swift boat, after all). More to the point, the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night.

Read the whole thing if you wish, but I've just spoiled the ending for you.

Back Online

Hooray! My DSL connection is up and working and I'm blogging from home. Classes are going well, my TA position starts tonight, I have my office set up and I've started meeting other grad students. Otherwise, I have little to report. I hope to begin regular blogging within the next couple of days (although not at the pace I previously managed), but for now I have much reading to do.

Greetings from Sunny Iowa

So, I should apologize up front and profusely for my dropping off the face of the earth. I still don't have internet service in my room, but more importantly I've been very busy for the last week just getting set up and moved into my new digs. I know it's a rather tired observation, but I really do have far too many books and albums, on top of music equipment and clothes, so taken altogether it's just a hella hassle to move it all and get shit set up. I do have a much larger room than I did back in Austin, so that's nice.

Anyway, I've been meaning to write up something about my first impressions of Iowa, and as it seems Blogger is acting up, I'll have to give it to you guys rather than to those who inexplicably continue to visit my own site after going a month without a substantial update.

What I've had the best chance to observe at this point is a) the people in my program and b) the people in my co-op. The department of Communication Studies at Iowa is divided into three subdisciplines – Media Studies (my section), Rhetoric, and Interpersonal/Small Group communication. The interesting thing is that the lines between these three disciplines, and the people who populate them, is so stark. The Media people are all more or less like me – pop-culture obsessed, more or less cynical hipsters. You can spot the Media people very easily by their dress. This is true to a lesser degree of the Rhetoric people, who are mainly philosophers, and thus tend to have creative facial hair and wear cardigans. But there's definitely a certain amount of blurriness between these two groups, while the Interpersonal/Small Group (IPSG for short) people are of a whole different class. A large component of the IPSG program is Health Communication, and the people in the program are largely women and could be best characterized as nurse-esque – dressed unremarkably and uniformly "nice." Actually, I shouldn't put that in quotes, they really are nice, and even adventurous – two of them, one a non-drinking Christian, came with us on Wednesday to a little club called "Let's Dance," which is located in a strip mall about half an hour away in Cedar Rapids. It was hip hop night, and someone got their ass beat, but that's another story for another time.

Anyway, so yeah, three categories of students, and I don't anticipate them mixing too much over the next few years. I've met a few people who I like well enough, and one guy who I bonded with quite well who's in Rhetoric – but as far as making genuine friends, I think I may have to look outside of my department. These people have very much internalized the discipline of Grad school, which I think is why I spent last night playing a game called "Cranium" with five other people in someone's apartment living room. I've gotta find some kind of way out of that lifestyle, toot sweet. Or maybe I just need to give in and find a boardgame that somehow reinforces my study habits. Yeah.

That leaves my co-op. The people here are much different from those I lived with in co-ops in Austin, in a few ways. First and foremost, everyone's older, most in their late twenties and some as old as forties and fifties, so everyone's considerably more on the ball than the mostly undergrads that lived at Helios in Austin. Second, since this is Iowa City's only co-op system, and there are only two houses, as opposed to the two large systems, and countless independent houses in Austin, it seems there is a much higher concentration of the hardcore here – which is to say, hippies. I can sum it up pretty conveniently, actually - there's a guy here named Truth Hawk. 'Nuf said. Thirdly, and mostly subtly, everyone in the house is noticably soft-spoken and retiring, sparing in their expression of emotion, and quite hesitant to rub anyone the wrong way. This is one that I'm going to go ahead and call a Midwest thing.

Overall, I think I'll get along, though. I'll find the people I want to know, hopefully sooner rather than later – I'm going to start volunteering at the student radio station, so there'll be more social opportunities there. The only thing that hasn't been going so well is my hunt for a girlfriend. I'd really like to hook up with someone before things get too intense school-wise (does that sound crass?), and it seems like most people who I'm interacting with are in relationships, which is a bit of a shock coming from swinging singles Austin. But on the other hand, I'm better looking than most of the dudes around here, so we'll see how it goes.

Also, it really is sunny and beautiful here - perhaps the single most striking thing is the very, very noticeable difference between Texas' constant smog and the clear, blue, bright skies here. It's really quite amazing.

More to come.

This Can't Be A Good Sign..

Improbably, the Iraqi soccer team has made it to the Olympic semifinals. This would seem to be a great story for the reconstruction effort and Bush generally, only the Iraqis are still pissed at Bush.

``There have been many sacrifices made for this match tonight. ... Our families are unhappy and very sad,'' Hamad said through an interpreter. ``They are all surrounded by difficult conditions and tough situations in our country. And we are trying to offer the best we can with a little happiness for our people.''

One person definitely not on Hamad's speed dial was President Bush, who has stirred some anger among the Iraqi coach and players for using Iraq's flag during a reference to the Olympics in a commercial for his re-election campaign. The U.S. Olympic Committee has also raised concern about the ad's use of the games for a political purpose.

Asked about the commercial, Hamad said: ``Bush helps to destroy our country. After a year and a half, we have passed into a very bad situation. ... We'll never believe Bush can be with us.''

Those ungrateful Arabs. How can they be angry after all our president has done for them?

Go Tyler!!!

The other bad-ass American cyclist takes Olympic gold! He beat a world-class field while he was at it. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see whether Lance would have beat him, as he was partying with his rock-star girlfriend down in Austin.

First Day

So, just got out of my first class in four years, Chaucer's Early Works. Should be fun, but I must admit I'm a bit intimidated since I'm not used to the amount of reading and writing I'll be doing. Good thing blogging has gotten me back into writing these past few months. Expect me to be blogging a lot about my readings and not so much about politics. Speaking of which, has anything noteworthy happened lately? This disconnected life has sapped me of all my moral outrage.

Just Stopping By

This is just to let those of you who care know that I've moved to Dallas and will have my DSL installed on Tuesday (supposedly). Hopefully I can resume regular blogging then. I'll try to post the fiasco that my move has become later this week. In the meantime, you'll just have to continue to do without me. I know it's hard, but it builds character.

Is Russia Sliding Towards A Gangster Oligarchy?

A story barely brushed over in the media that deserves more attention is the recent murder of the Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov in Moscow. A few years ago I read Klebnikov's fearless political biography of the tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who is now out of favor with Putin and living off his enormous fortune as a fugitive abroad.

Klebnikov's book is filled with astonishing hints and allegations--that the Russian oil business is practically run by mafias, that Berezovsky was paying off Chechnian terrorists while being close to the Yeltsin and Putin governments, that the Putin government may have been aware of or even complicit with the terrorist bombing on the Moscow subways (which led to the 2nd Chechnian war and solidified Putin's hold on power).

Admittedly, I don't know much about Russian politics. But I do remember that Klebnikov had some hard words for Clinton's decision to unequivocally support Yeltsin despite the corruption in his government. Since then, the cause of open society in Russia does not seem to be improving. Except for the occasional verbal jab from Powell, the American administration doesn't seem to be doing anything about it.

The Russian economy is dependent on oil, so as long as the prices remain high, things should remain stable. But if disaster strikes, Russia is still an authoritarian country outside of the NATO structure where Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism are on the rise. People shouldn't assume that a new rivalry with Russia is out of the question—all the more reason to aggressively spread democratic values there and stop disrespecting international institutions designed to bring us closer together. The failure of American public relations is not merely a problem in the Arab world—it could help resuscitate old hostilities, especially as we strive to deal with Russia's friend Iran.

For more on Russia and oligarchy, check out Noel Paul's TNR report on the "lessons" of Russia, specifically in reference to the rise and fall of the oil baron Khodorkovsky. However, I would hesitate to endorse Paul's view that the Russian people 'want' an authoritarian state. They don't really have a 'choice' in the manner, unless they want to go back to communism (which couldn't really happen at this point, anyway. Putin and his allies have too much power.)

Classic Bush

“That’s why you’ve got to be careful about this rhetoric, we’re only going to tax the rich. You know who the–the rich in America happen to be the small business owners. That’s what that means. Just remember, when you’re talking about, oh, we’re just going to run up the taxes on a certain number of people – first of all, real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes. [Laughter.] And the small business owners end up paying a lot of the burden of this taxation.”

From David Corn's website. Bush apologists claim he was joking. I'm sure he was--but not entirely.

iBook

What up!
So I just got a new iBook 14 inch. (don't worry d.Morris your money should be in your hand next week)
This is my first portable and was wondering if any of you out there have any recommendations on good LapTop bags or any type of accessories that you guys think I might need.
Hola back. Shout out to Scott!!

Wet Wipes

Hello,
Will Mike will be with out a internet connection for a while, so I figured that I can finally post some goofy shit with out him telling me that my post are going to be deleted. So yeah the content is about to get kinda low brow for a bit.
First thing I wanted to discuss is wet wipes. Mike and his Wife Danni have been goofing on me since I went to the grocery store with them and purchased some Sesame Street Wet Wipes.
I explained to them that when you drink from time to time and eat spicy food, Mudd Butt happens. And I like to make sure that am clean down there. They still mocked me and my hygiene. They really laughed when I told them that I use them at work. My defense is that I don't like walking around with a dirty ass. I went to school with this kid and he smelt like 10 day old dirty ass. People goofed on him all the time. My Mom banned him from coming in to our house. I think that it was knowing that kid that made me very paranoid about my own smell.
So I was just wanting to see how many people out there use them? And if you don't give it a try. Give a try for a week and come back and let me know how you like it.

Goodbye Austin

Tomorrow is my last day living in Austin for at least a few years, if not forever. So, naturally, it's an excuse to post some photos. These are mainly all places I've hung out at. None are of people I know, since I'm not sure how they'd feel about having their pictures online. Enjoy.

Austin is in the hill country of Texas. This is a view from the fourth floor of the office I worked in.

This is my empty cubicle as of today.

This golden Buddha statue sits in front of a temple I passed every day on the way to work.

Thundercloud Subs makes the best sub sandwiches in town, much, much, much better than Subway.

Kerbey Lane is open 24 hours and has some great pancakes. The one near campus is always filled with college kids and their parents.

Magnolia Cafe is another great place for breakfast and probably captures the feel of Austin a little better than Kerbey Lane.

Spider House has a great open, cobble-stone courtyard with wooden windchimes and Christmas lights everywhere.

Mojo's is yet another coffee house. It lets graffiti artists tag up the fence and walls outside. You can usually find people playing chess there, too. The iced Mojo is great for hot days.

Austin is a generally liberal town. The mural behind this wacko is one of the many spread out across the town.

Anyways, this is nowhere near all the great spots in Austin, but it's a few that I've spent a pretty significant amount of time at. I've left out the Greenbelt, 6th Street, Barton Springs, South Congress, downtown, Waterloo Records, and a thousand other places. Hopefully my new neighborhood will be as laid-back and fun as Austin, but there's something unique about this place. Despite the many recent changes that long-time Austinites decry, it's still plenty weird.

Debunking The SBVT

One quick post before I go on hiatus. Via Discourse.net, here's a comprehensive debunking of many of the SBVT claims. Of particular interest to me was the one on Cambodia that cites a number of sources from the late 60s that mention American troops going into Cambodia. In other words, it was possible and did happen, making me discount the claims that there were concrete pylons and Navy patrol boats locking down the border. Perhaps it was the case at some point, but it certainly wasn't always that way. Unless we see some dates for when those measures were put in place, that line of attack seems dead. I haven't had time to read the whole thing (I'm busy cleaning out my desk and changing my address with all the companies I owe money), but check it out.

Hush Now

I'm moving this week and won't have Internet access for probably about a week or so. Expect posting to be light to non-existent in the interim.

Cambodian Secrets

Kevin Drum links to a few more sources about Kerry's work with the CIA in Cambodia and has this to say:

Kerry certainly operated in the area of the Cambodian border in late 1968, Americans were definitely making border incursions at the time, and the CIA certainly had a lot of people in Vietnam in 1968. That doesn't mean Kerry's story is true, but it's certainly plausible.

The serious evidence against Kerry seems to consist of two things. First, the Swift Vets group claims that "All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command . . . deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia." Second, both David Brinkley's biography of Kerry and Kerry's war journal mention only that he was near the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, not across it. (Although the journal entry ends with a sarcastic message to his superiors: "Merry Christmas from the most inland Market Time unit" — at a minimum a reference to being right on top of the Cambodian border. Then: "You hope that they'll court marshal you or something because that would make sense" — possibly a reference to crossing the border.)

It doesn't really clear anything up, but it's (slightly) more information. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth on this one.

Confused About Cambodia

Via Captain's Quarters, I came across this Byron York article that tries to shed some light on whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not. First, quoting Steve Gardner, the SBVT member who served under Kerry, York writes:

"It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat," says Gardner. "There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."

But later, writes this:

[Retired admiral Roy] Hoffman said that after an earlier incident in which some soldiers had unintentionally crossed the Cambodian border, the line was very clearly marked with signs warning not to cross.

Hoffman is one of the SBVT leaders. However, his account differs significantly from Gardner's. He even acknowledges that boats had previously gone into Cambodia. Concrete pilings and Navy patrol boats are a far less surmountable barrier than warning signs. If it was the former, then there's simply no way Kerry could have gone into Cambodia, but if it's the latter, then the suggestion that he went there while disobeying orders remains plausible. But to add to the confusion, York quotes Jim Wasser, one of Kerry's supporting crew members:

Finally, another member of Kerry's crew, Jim Wasser, who supports Kerry in the presidential race, told the Dallas Observer last month that he wasn't sure where PCF-44 was at the time in question. "On Christmas in 1968, we were close [to Cambodia]," Wasser said. "I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure."

This passage suggests that Kerry was confused about their position and believed them to be in Cambodia, another possibility I touched on in my previous post. Of course, given the reports that he carries around a hat from a CIA agent he took into Cambodia on a secret mission strongly suggests otherwise, which covers the last possibility from my earlier list.

In other words, I'm still confused. It seems to hinge on whether Cambodia was accessible and whether Kerry ever took a CIA agent in. Arguably, if the latter case were true, then the former would be by necessity, since those sorts of operations would certainly be granted clearance to pass regardless of the normal status of the canal.

Either way, I'm reluctant to accept the word of SBVT members without confirmation by a disinterested party (if such still exist). It strikes me as overzealous to blindly accept these allegations as truth when there are so many questions and so few facts.

In Praise of Lit Blogs

Several months ago we had a back and forth on the topic of academic and literature blogs. Today, Collected Miscellany has a post up praising them:

But I do want to point out that the resulting discussion shows literary blogs at there best: reacting, thinking, offering perspective, debating, criticizing, and adding personality. This type of extended conversation is what the nimble format of blogs allow, a sort of freewheeling debate and discussion that is emotional and intellectual, reactive and creative, personal and professional, and interesting and educational. This type of thing helps you to learn about fellow bloggers, the subject at hand, and about your own feelings and ideas by comparing and contrasting them as you go along. Throw in the satire and you have educational entertainment as horrible as that may sound.

Of course, I don't know if the lit blogs Kevin is praising are run by academics or not, which is largely what our previous discussion was about, but it's nice to see that good literature blogs are possible. I never doubted it.

Conversation Spreads

Phil at Umbrae Canarum linked to this long meditation on why serious conversation is important and valuable:

Let's get back to the question of whether serious discussion (which as you can see I equate with philosophy) is mere vanity. Why persist in this leisured sport that no one else understands? The answer has to be what Strauss called "natural right" -- that this activity is the (or, conceivably, a) fulfillment of our nature as human beings. For Socrates, I think, one was simply not a man unless one was a philosopher: "The unexamined life is not livable for a human being"; dwellers in the metaphorical cave of the Republic appear to the man above-ground to be shades of the dead. We have to do this because it is what we are meant to do; our happiness (in the strong sense) depends on it.

This line of thought reminds me of various defenses of art. Why do we feel the need to defend these things at all? Weren't they once universally recognized as important and necessary for a good life? Are we all just paranoid? Sadly, I don't think so. As "simplify" was Thoreau's watchword, our age's might be "trivialize." I blame tv.

Manners and Conversation

Let's continue this experiment. Phil writes:

[C]onsider a conversation you have had, any conversation where ideas may enter in (literary, political, theological, aesthetic, whatever). Do you and the others flesh out points, willing to show (sans acrimony) contradictions or leaps in logic, and able to see the bigger picture through examples (while not getting locked into concerns about minute and irrelevant specifics on the examples)? Or are we restrained, to a certain extent, by our own manners and, for lack of a better term, social "rules-of-play"? Do we instead look for a consensus, trying to avoid ripping the other apart, or (on the other hand) defend one's own position not in terms of finding Truth but rather holding the line, all the while finding nits to pick with the opponent?

There is obviously still some value in conversation despite its shortcomings. Otherwise, why would we persist? There is the social grooming aspect of small talk, the equivalent of picking bugs from each other's fur, but I doubt that's what Phil has in mind. Those sorts of conversations rarely, if ever, attempt to discover the truth and concern themselves with the mundane. Valuable, but largely uninteresting unless you're in them or a sociologist. The next type of conversation might be the one concerned strictly with transmitting facts. These two types suggest the simple dichotomy of rational and emotional. Since we're concerned with the highest forms of rational discourse, let's skip the deep, emotional discussions to go straight to what is in this case the ideal—the sober, rational, and abstract conversation that seems so difficult to achieve. Here manners may be a hindrance.

The search for consensus, or at least, a verbal truce directs many conversations, even the more abstract, ostensibly less personal ones, particularly when the parties involved disagree, but amiably. To this extent politeness prevents a more meaningful, probing conversation. It's particularly difficult to provide concrete examples or to grasp the larger picture. However, I think this has less to do with social rules than with the rapid nature of conversation. Who actually thinks before they speak? Even when discussing difficult, obscure topics, I tend to just spout whatever comes to mind rather than pausing and reflecting first. In my experience, nearly everyone is guilty. This can be lessened when discussing topics one has already studied and formed opinions on though.

Pointing out flaws in logic is also troublesome because of manners. It is, in some ways, impolite to notice that your conversation partner is using less than stellar reasoning. Maybe this is why many debates devolve into mere nit-picking. It's easy to prove someone wrong on a minor detail and people are more likely to take correction there as well, assuming they are not idealogues.

So, we have two problems preventing good conversation, format and manners. For the format, I think what we strive for is slower, more thoughtful conversation, something more along the lines of writing. Again, the obvious answer is blogs, but does that mean nobody had good conversations before? Of course not. Perhaps they just took their time answering. Perhaps such conversations rarely exist. Either way, slowing down responses and being tolerant of long pauses seem like they would improve the level of discourse significantly. An obvious answer, but difficult to do. Rapid conversation and immediate response is so ingrained it will take time and effort to break it. Manners, though, are more difficult. The easiest option is to simply choose conversation partners that are not easily offended, regardless of what you say, but those can be difficult to find. Maybe a better option is to find those who are capable of holding their egos in abeyance and can take correction. Here again, Socrates is a good example. Although few (any?) got the better of him in the dialogues we have, he was always open to correction and willing to readily admit mistake. Why are many people unwilling or unable to do so? Maybe it's because of the emotional function conversation usually fills. After all, we are at our cores emotional beings. It is difficult for us to separate anything from ourselves or our feelings, even when they have little to do with one another. However, it seems some ground rules, a distinct set of manners relating to serious conversation, would help. Phil suggests this was once the case:

"Passive" is the key word here. In this day and age, we can look back at the dialogues of Plato, and act as spectators of a conversation, but the experience of the thing, while perhaps imitated, is not actualized. In this true type of dialogue, we can refute, confirm, challenge, re-interpret, and so forth with our fellow conversationalists.

Maybe the problem is simply we have the wrong set of manners now. Blog discussions (the good ones) seem to get around this due to their slower pace and insistence on civility. There's something about the written word that shifts us into a more serious mode, one that helps divorce the ego from the ergo. Maybe if we can just slow down and converse in that mode we can have the active, challenging conversations we want. I know it's possible. I've had them before, but they are rare and were stumbled upon. They were typically with people I already agreed with to a large extent. What we need is a system, an understanding among the participants of the expectations.

Anyways, I thought I would throw my reaction out there. I feel that this whole post has been little more than rambling, but I'm going to leave it that way to better approximate a real conversation. After all, that is what we're attempting here, even if it is at a slower speed.

More Khan Outing

This post suggests that the New York Times outed Khan first and that the administration only confirmed it after his named had already appeared in the paper:

The New York Times obtained Khan's name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning.

If this is true, the journalist and editors responsible for this need to be sat down and talked to by some scary feds.

Consider the Source

In discussing the SBVT claims, it's important to recognize that:

A lot of the crucial reporting about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), the group trying to dirty up John Kerry's Vietnam record in order to neutralize a great and obvious advantage he has over the incumbent, has already been done -- by Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News, UPI's Thom J. Rose, Salon's Joe Conason, and David Brock's Media Matters For America. So the reporters and editorialists at our major papers should know, for example, that Pat Runyon, who was on Kerry's swift boat, says (to Slater) that an SBVT investigator named Tom Rupprath interviewed him and then distorted what Runyon said to presenting a less flattering portrait of Kerry. They should know also that of the $158,750 the group declared in its latest IRS filing, fully $150,000 came from three men -- two Bush and Republican Party backers in Texas, and longtime Kerry antagonist John O'Neill. Finally, they should know that virtually none of the SBVT members actually served with Kerry on his boat, while 10 of 11 men who did serve with Kerry fully support the record that has been in existence for more than 30 years -- the official Defense Department record that supports Kerry's version of events and claims to heroism.

Insert standard caveat about possible truthfulness despite, mix with platitude about grains of salt.

Kerry's Cambodian Christmas

It seems the SBVT may have scored a hit due to Kerry's claim that he was in Cambodia in December of 1968. So far, the problems with his story are two-fold. First up, is this:

By way of further example, Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Nixon was not president in 1968. However, this post, with an image of what he said after returning from Vietnam, makes it clear that at the time Kerry did not claim it was Nixon denying there were US troops in Cambodia. 11 years later he did, but since Nixon had already been elected by that point, it seems quite plausible to assume that Kerry simply got that fact mixed up, especially since his earlier testimony did not make that mistake. So, that aspect of the Cambodia issue seems more like hype and smear than fact.

However, that's just minor compared to the real problem that may exist. Was Kerry in Cambodia or not? Captain's Quarter excerpts a letter that says:

Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested.

I believe this quote is from the SBVT book though, so it should probably be independently verified if possible before swallowing it whole, particularly how tight the border was. As this site points out, Sa Dec is pretty close to Cambodia, so it was certainly possible to get there in a short amount of time, even if Kerry was not stationed there. If the border was porous or if boats might have been allowed across while in pursuit of attackers, then the claims the he could not possibly have made it into Cambodia fail.

Despite all this, there are still two possibilities about the truthfulness of Kerry's claim with several potential reasons:

1. He lied about being in Cambodia.
a) He did so purposefully in service of his anti-Vietnam war activism.
b) He mistook his location and thought his boat was farther along the river and into Cambodia.

2. He told the truth.
a) He was on a secret mission that his superiors either were not aware of or feel the need to deny knowledge of.
b) He disobeyed orders while pursuing attackers.

Captain's Quarters latest post on the topic suggests 2b may be true:

To top it off, Kerry said, he had gone several miles inside Cambodia, which theoretically was off limits, prompting Kerry to send a sarcastic message to his superiors that he was writing from the Navy's "most inland" unit.

Back at his base, a weary, disconsolate Kerry sat at his typewriter, as he often did, and poured out his grief. "You hope that they'll courtmartial you or something because that would make sense," Kerry typed that night.

The post goes on to point out some apparent inconsistencies about Kerry listening to the President radio address, but that point is rather weak. It's quite possible Kerry could have followed attackers into Cambodia then turned the radio on later. This would also make his wry disbelief upon hearing the President proclaim there were no American troops in Cambodia understandable.

In other words, from strident anti-Kerry sources, a plausible, coherent story arises that could vindicate Kerry's claims of being in Cambodia. I'm not claiming that's the truth, but it's a distinct possibility that's being ignored amidst all the rhetoric. That said, if it turns out that Kerry did lie about this (can't someone just ask his shipmates?) it would likely solidify the image of a him as given to self-aggrandizement and exaggeration to further his political goals. Despite Joyner's belief that it won't be a campaign-killer, I think it could be very damaging. As it stands now, those that believe the worst of this story are those that wouldn't vote for Kerry anyways, but the risk is that the speculation will be picked up by the mainstream news media before it can be confirmed or denied. If that happens, Kerry risks having a very unfavorable story become the conventional wisdom which could easily dissuade a significant portion of swing voters.

Of course, if he did lie about being in Cambodia, then we'd have a clear choice between a liar and... umm... a liar.

The Party of Economic Responsibilty

Here's a provocative article from the LA Times that looks at the economic records under both parties since 1960. The conclusion:

It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).

What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.

Unfortunately, the author doesn't provide links to the spreadsheets he used or the data itself, but, to be honest, I'm not going to take the time to double-check the math. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the potential causes for these results to determine if the president's policies caused, at least in part, in the results. That sounds like a dissertation topic though and I'm no economist.

Grandmasters Falsify Too

According to this article chess Grandmasters are better at falsifying their own hypotheses about potential moves than others. No big surprise there, but that's not why I'm blogging it. I found that article via this post on Marginal Revolution that contains this stray comment:

I have long believed that chess players are an especially unhappy lot. If you lose, you cannot even blame it on the weather. And everyone is ranked on a common rating scale with a clearly defined dimension of winning or losing. Sad to say, but a strict meritocracy is not great fun for the majority of participants.

Yes, chess is a meritocracy, but unless one can only have fun when winning, then there's no reason a majority of the participants can't have fun. Of course, winning a game is significantly more enjoyable than losing (although you actually learn things when you lose), but just playing the game is the real joy. The visual imagination, the struggle of wills, the time pressure (real chess players use clocks), the endlessly branching paths, the excitement of finding a surprising, good move (!!)—all are independent of winning. Plus, the fact that the outcome relies only on skill means you can savor your win more than in games of chance. Even if you only enjoy winning, there are always weaker players you can trounce. It's not like we all have to play Kasparov.

How Bush Fights Terrorists

Juan Cole has an update on the Khan outing:

The Bush administration revealed Khan's name to US journalists on Sunday August 1 on background, and it appeared in the US press on Monday. The Bush administration thus effectively outed Khan as a double agent (he sent emails to his London contacts as late as Monday).

The British MI5 was forced to have the London cell of 13 arrested immediately on Tuesday, fearing that they would flee now that they knew Khan had been arrested two weeks earlier. The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully.

It now turns out, according to Neville, that "Reports last week also claimed that five al Qaida militants were on the run in the UK after escaping capture in last Tuesday’s raids." If this is true, it is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest.

Combine this latest bit of ineptitude with the massive distraction of Iraq, plus the refusal to attack known terrorist camps in Kurd-controlled Iraq prior to that war and you start to wonder if Bush is actually serious about defeating terrorists. Or, to be more exact, if he's capable of it.

Doom 3

I would just like to say that Doom 3 is the coolest game ever. Play it at 4am by yourself in a dark room.

Cover Blown?

Juan Cole writes:

In other words, the Bush administration just blew the cover of one of the most important assets inside al-Qaeda that the US has ever had.

The announcement of Khan's name forced the British to arrest 12 members of an al-Qaeda cell prematurely, before they had finished gathering the necessary evidence against them via Khan. Apparently they feared that the cell members would scatter as soon as they saw that Khan had been compromised. (They would have known he was a double agent, since they got emails from him Sunday and Monday!) One of the twelve has already had to be released for lack of evidence, a further fall-out of the Bush SNAFU. It would be interesting to know if other cell members managed to flee.

He also suggests that the motivation was stupidity in service of politics. They needed to provide some credible evidence for the recent terror alert, so dropped Khan's name to prove they had an actual reason for it. So, of course, it's all the Democrats' fault for questioning the timing.

Haiku

Cicadas clatter undercloud
Sunlight chants over gravesites
This world, never silent!

Awake naked in bed
Afternoon of softglow clouds,
At night she asks "Why?"

Driving towards friends
Shaking hands and smiling—
Leaving, it's ages ago

Apple and Convergence

Curious about the future of Apple or the future of MP3 players? Then read this article:

An iPod Mini is going to make a much better mobile music player than your cell phone. But when your cell phone has 5 gigabytes of storage and bluetooth headphones.... the writing is on the wall here. All that's missing is a little time. Apple is one solid-state storage breakthrough (and the networks getting their act together on 3G) from having the market for the iPod evaporate to a pale shadow of its former glory, and they know it.

Although most of the article discusses Apple's strategy for the future, it touches on one of the more interesting topics when considering technology, convergence. I've been saying for years that one day there will be a cell phone/laptop hybrid with paper-thin screens and keyboards that can be rolled up to fit the entire device in your pocket, nearly ubiquitous high speed, wireless Internet access, and the whole thing will cost less than $500. That's still my dream device. It's probably 10-15 years away, but it will happen thanks to convergence and Moore's Law. It will be the exclamation point on the Information Revolution.

Spreading a Meme

Normally I ignore these sorts of questionnaires, particularly the "which of these books have you read?" ones (although I answer them in my head), but this one asks some good questions. So, in case anyone is at all interested in me, here we go:

35 Questions

Everything you never cared to know about me one way or the other:

1) WHAT COLOR ARE YOUR BEDROOM WALLS?

Off white.

2) WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING NOW?

"Béatrix" by Honoré de Balzac and "Selected Essays & Reviews" by Hayden Carruth.

3) WHAT’S ON YOUR MOUSE PAD?

The Flash.net logo.

4) FAVORITE BOARD GAME?

Chess.

5) FAVORITE MAGAZINE?

I don't really read magazines, but I like the Paris Review.

6) FAVORITE SMELL?

Pho.

7) FAVORITE COLOR?

Green.

8) LEAST FAVORITE COLOR?

I'm not sure. I don't think there are any I actively dislike.

9) HOW MANY RINGS BEFORE YOUR ANSWERING MACHINE PICKS UP?

Four.

10) MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL THING IN MY LIFE?

My computer.

11) FAVORITE FLAVOR OF ICE CREAM?

Homemade cherry.

12) DO YOU BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT DAILY?

Yeah, but only by 5 mph or so.

13) DO YOU HAVE A STUFFED ANIMAL IN YOUR ROOM SOMEWHERE?

Several spider monkeys, some of which scream when you squeeze them.

14) STORMS - COOL OR SCARY?

Yes.

15) FAVORITE DRINK?

Red wine, dry and tannic, or Jack and coke.

16) WHEN IS YOUR BIRTHDAY?

In December, but far enough away from Christmas that I get good presents for both.

17) FAVORITE VEGETABLES?

Garlic.

18) IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY JOB, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

Independently wealthy playboy.

19) IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY COLOR HAIR, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

Black.

20) HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN LOVE?

Yes. I'm married.

21) TOP THREE FAVORITE MOVIES (IN ORDER)?

The Muppet Movie, Seven Samurai, The Lord of the Rings

22) DO YOU TYPE WITH YOUR FINGERS ON THE RIGHT KEYS?

Sometimes.

23) WHAT’S UNDER YOUR BED?

A closet door.

24) WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE NUMBER?

7.

25) FAVORITE SPORT TO WATCH ON TV & IN PERSON?

Football (American, not futbol).

26) WHAT IS YOUR SINGLE BIGGEST FEAR?

Living meaninglessly.

27) FAVORITE CD OF ALL TIME & RIGHT NOW?

All time: Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue"
Right now: My MP3 player on full random play.

28) FAVORITE TV SHOW OF ALL TIME & RIGHT NOW?

Not sure.

29) HAMBURGERS OR HOT DOGS?

Neither. I'm vegetarian. But veggie burgers over veggie dogs.

30) THE COOLEST PLACES YOU’VE EVER BEEN?

Various small towns in Europe.

31) WHAT WALLPAPER AND/OR SCREENSAVER IS ON YOUR COMPUTER RIGHT NOW?

No screensaver. My wallpaper is a picture of a Barbie doll wearing an explosive-strapped vest and holding a detonator.

32) DOES MCDONALD’S SKIMP ON YOUR FRIES & DO YOU CARE?

I don't eat at McDonald's, although I do use their restrooms in order to cost them money.

33) FAVORITE CHAIN RESTAURANT?

P. F. Chang's.

34) IF YOU HAVE A BOY (OR HAVE ANOTHER BOY) WHAT WOULD YOU NAME HIM?

Miles

35) IF YOU COULD LEARN TO PLAY ONE INSTRUMENT OVERNIGHT, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

Piano or cello. Probably piano, but it only wins by a slight margin.

Hmm... maybe that was less interesting than I thought. I just spent several minutes answering all those stupid questions though, so I'm posting it anyways.

Lest We Forget

Michael Bérubé highlights an excellent article detailing exactly how the Bush administration knowingly exaggerated the threat of Iraq:

But as author Flannery O'Conner noted, "Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." That means no matter how much defensive spin spews from the White House, the Bush administration cannot escape the documented fact that it was clearly warned before the war that its rationale for invading Iraq was weak.

There's much more—it's a long article—but it's important that we regularly review the facts lest the spin and poor memory let Bush off the hook. We must demand better from our leaders. To do so requires us to remember how and why they have failed.

More on the Amazing, Vanishing Iraq

Krugman details how the news media have started to ignore Iraq:

A funny thing happened after the United States transferred sovereignty over Iraq. On the ground, things didn't change, except for the worse.

But as Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect puts it, the cosmetic change in regime had the effect of "Afghanizing" the media coverage of Iraq.

He's referring to the way news coverage of Afghanistan dropped off sharply after the initial military defeat of the Taliban. A nation we had gone to war to liberate and had promised to secure and rebuild - a promise largely broken - once again became a small, faraway country of which we knew nothing.

Of course, this was one of main reasons Bush wanted to hand over sovereignty so quickly in the first place. That's not to say it wasn't the right thing to do. Given the (still) growing unhappiness with the American occupation among Iraqis, it was probably wise to get them started on self-rule quickly while still attempting to keep the country relatively stable. That doesn't mean it wasn't also very politically convenient. Unfortunately, that should probably be "self-rule" since we still haven't actually given the Iraqis much in the way of real power. Regularly overruling Allawi just makes him look like a puppet and ruins what legitimacy he might have had.

Almost worse, though, is the travesty of coverage these issues receive. I wonder if we should just destroy all the mainstream news media and start over.

The Symposium

While pointing out the utter vapidness of televised round-table "discussions" and other political chatter, Phil wonders what Plato would have done:

THRASYMACHUS: "Damn right, 'rebuttal.' Justice is merely the interest of the stronger. Quick, simple, applicable anywhere. Next question."

SOCRATES: "Surely we can't leave it at that. Let us talk about what this means..."

PLATO: "Socrates, rebuttal? Ten seconds."

SOCRATES: "You can't be serious. We're talking about justice, here! I can't just summarize it in some bite-sized little..."

PLATO: "Hold that thought. When we come back, we'll have more on justice and the polis. You're watching Academy Live."

Of course, he's making some more serious points, but there's the hook for you.

In the way of conclusion, he writes:

Is there an avenue for the type of conversation that truly is enlightening? I don't know. Especially now, it seems often more the result of dumb luck (or divine providence, depending on your view) that a discussion can come about among the learned, concerned for the good, the true, the beautiful. In previous centuries, where literacy was lacking for many, perhaps these types of dialogues came about more easily, since the number actually able to discuss in an educated way was smaller. Now, we are almost all to a person half-educated, trying to speak the same way, or have chattering pundits speak for us.

I disagree with this part. In answer to his question, there are many forums for enlightening discussions. One of the more obvious ones is blogs. Yes, there are many superficial, troll-ridden discussions, but our own humble experiment has been fairly successful at generating some long, fascinating discussions on a wide range of topics. Then, of course, there's always the hours-long coffee shop conversations with intelligent friends and strangers which can be both insightful, entertaining, and highly rewarding.

I imagine what Phil is really talking about are more public, influential discussions though. In that case, he's correct to claim they just aren't any high profile, serious-minded debates about "the good, the true, the beautiful," but I'm not sure if there ever has been. Our current mass media and its nearly ubiquitous reach is unprecedented. It's not an 18th century French salon, an English coffee house, or a Greek symposium. As a result of its very nature as a visual medium, television devalues the written word and the more patient meditations it allows, an attitude that I think informed those types of discussions in the past. Furthermore, television directs its "debates" at a vastly larger audience than Plato would have ever considered. Socrates's dialogues were between himself and a handful of other people, much like current round tables, but they didn't take place on the floor of a packed Coliseum (yes, I know that's an anachronism). This suggests that serious, deep conversations are inherently private affairs between a handful of people, precisely the form of conversations that can still be found.

The Problem With "Flip-Flop"

As I've decried before, the charge that a politician "flip-flops" is, at best, useless and, at worst, an active condemnation of the ability to change one's mind, a characteristic we should want in our leaders. Via Tapped, I found this Richard Cohen column that discusses how Bush has flip-flopped in pointing out the ridiculousness of this particular form of political gotcha:

Flip-flopping, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It can be an indicator of an alert mind, one that adjusts to new realities, or it can be evidence of ambition decoupled from principle. With Kerry it's a mix of both. With Bush, who changes his positions but never his mind, it is always the latter.

As you can probably tell from this passage, the article is particularly unfriendly to Bush. In fact, the impetus behind the column seems to be criticizing Bush rather than the idiocy of "flip-flop" claims, but in the process Cohen makes some good points on both topics.

Another Vanishing Act

Along with the disappearance of Iraq, Rumsfeld has gone missing as well. The latter is certainly smart strategy on Bush's part, but what about the former? Is it a result of Bush's downplaying of Iraq? Has the media simply gotten bored with the constant attacks, kidnappings, and bombings? Or is my perception of how much coverage Iraq is receiving distorted by the little attention I pay to the mainstream news media?

Connect the Dots

Does the Bush administration play politics with the terror alerts? This post argues that they do by providing a long list of terror alerts along with the unpleasant news for the Bush administration at the time.

I'm not convinced. Although I'm regularly suspicious of their timing, given the preponderance of bad news for the Bush administration along with the relatively large number of alerts that have been issued, it seems completely unsurprising that many alerts would come shortly after unfavorable stories were reported. The list certainly is a good, suggestive starting point, but without a comprehensive list of all terror alerts along with a comprehensive list of bad news for Bush that has been ranked for the degree to which it might be expected to damage him, this topic can be nothing but speculation.

It may very well be true. In fact, I'd be a bit surprised to find out that this administration never timed its alerts for maximum political benefit, but this list does not confirm my suspicions. It's akin to asking a room full of people if anyone shares a birthday.

Margin of Error Again

Matthew Yglesias makes a few minor corrections to the Campaign Desk margin of error explanation.

Carter Set the Cowboys Free

Weep not for the release of Quincy Carter. Although this year may return us fans temporarily to the despair of prior five win seasons, Carter has unshackled the team:

This was a selfish, conniving, paranoid player, and while he talked the talk of only worrying about "my team" and only working hard for "my teammates," he never did walk that walk. Carter only cared about himself. Now we know.

If not, then why did he throw a fit when the Cowboys signed Vinny Testaverde? (Found out he did.) Did he think by crafting that 71.4 quarterback rating, by throwing more interceptions than touchdowns, by completing all of 57.8 percent of his passes merited him a free ride?

Or maybe he was reading all those excuses being provided for him; that he always had to learn a new offense, that he always had to work for a new coordinator; that he never was getting enough practice snaps. Poor baby.

And you know what, then why the hell did this self-anointed selfless player repeatedly fail a drug test, which if you play connect the dots with the Cowboys' sanitized announcement Wednesday, you could only come to this conclusion being widely reported by most media organizations.

I predict Henson, if he fails, will be the last baseball player chosen as a quarterback by the Cowboys for many years.

Cartier-Bresson Dead

Henri Cartier-Bresson, the famed photographer, has died. If you're unfamiliar with his work, check out this gallery of his stunning work via Coincidences.

Margin of Error Explained

The consistently excellent Campaign Desk explains the margin of error that so many journalists seem to have trouble understanding:

As an example, let's take the Newsweek numbers CNN political analyst Carlos Watson attempted to explain on July 12. In that poll, 51 percent supported Kerry-Edwards, while 45 percent supported Bush-Cheney. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, with a confidence interval of 95 percent. The simple six-point gap between the two tickets led Watson to believe that the difference surpassed the margin of error.

However, the margin of error was plus or minus four points for each number. If we subtract four points from the Kerry-Edwards ticket and add four points to the Bush-Cheney ticket, the result is Bush-Cheney at 49 percent, two points ahead of Kerry-Edwards at 47 percent.

The post also explains how and why Canada's journalists excel in explaining this distinction to their audiences.

Walkmans Killed Music

According to this editorial, at least:

Music, made portable, is removed from any frame of reference. It becomes a utility, undeserving of more attention than drinking water from a tap.

The music industry, by making the art ubiquitious (sic) and inescapable, robbed it of our respect as a unique and precious resource. Music that tinkles from the lugholes of passengers either side of you on the Clapham omnibus is not something that will be cherished.

This just sounds like an old crank complaining that things were better in his day to me. Music is less respected because it's more listened to? Perhaps it would be really revered if we locked up all the musicians and only allowed each person five minutes a year to hear them. If he can't appreciate music in a setting other than a concert hall, that's his problem, not a result of the Walkman or iPod. But I forget. Back in the Good Old Days, every song was a great work of lasting achievement instantly recognized and worshiped by all. No one wrote songs just for—gasp!—profit or mindless butt-shaking.

Iraq Vanishes

Iraq? Didn't we hand over sovereignty? Aren't we done there? If you get your news from tv and the papers, you might be wondering that. Coverage has certainly been quiet lately, but Body and Soul comes to the rescue with a wealth of links detailing recent events.

Carter? You're Cut

Quincy Carter will be cut by the Cowboys. Their website hosts a live audio feed discussing it right now and Parcells will have his press conference in about 30 minutes explaining the move. Personally, I think it's a mistake. Testaverde is a better quarterback, but he's not a long-term solution nor is he mobile. Unless the offensive line has significantly improved, this could be a major liability. Drew Henson may yet turn out to be the franchise's quarterback for the future, but that's yet to be known. Furthermore, if Carter improved even half as much this season as he did last season, he would be a solid, good quarterback. I don't understand. Maybe Parcells will shed some light on this seemingly inexplicable move.

UPDATE: The speculation on the radio show is that Carter's been cut for off-the-field problems which would fit with previous cuts Parcells has made. The rumor so far is that he failed a drug test.

UPDATE: As expected, Testaverde is now the starter. Also, both Parcells and Jones have talked about how they're "saddened" and "disappointed" with this which further suggests that this was because of some mistake on Carter's part.

UPDATE: Fox Sports reports it was a positive cocaine test. If that's the case, then Carter screwed up royally. First off, cocaine only stays in your system for a few days, so if he tested positive it means he'd been using it very recently. Given the tight-lipped nature of the press conference, I imagine that's what happened. If it were some other reason, Jones and Parcells would likely elaborate. All they'll say so far is that he let them down.

Now It Makes Sense

Why would Bush create the position of National Director of Intelligence, but only as a figurehead? It didn't make any sense until I read this:

Anyone placed at the head of the vast and intertwining web of competing agencies that comprise the intelligence community must remain as independent as possible in order to remain unsullied by the taint of departmental politics. However, giving the NDI budgetary and staffing authority automatically embroils him in the internecine squabbles of the intelligence community. While some might argue that making the NDI a Cabinet-level position would give an NDI the authority to cut through the bureacracy, it would simply taint the position even more by plunging the hapless public servant into the midst of the backstabbing and corruption of the White House itself.

Bush's true plan is now evident to me. It's all about reducing bureaucracy in order to make the position more effective. His next step will be to shut himself off from all policy details, news, and other forms of "information" in order to be able to make clear, unfettered decisions.

Wait, he already does that.

Moqtada's Militia

In case you thought al-Sadr's Mahdi militia had disappeared, this article should disabuse of you of that notion:

Scarcely a street corner can be found without a Mahdi Army member, more often than not in a black shirt with a pistol tucked discreetly in his waistband. Sadr officials say the group is making the first tentative steps towards becoming a political force like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

US patrols rarely venture here and the local police tend to take orders from Sadr's men rather than the other way around.

This does not bode well.

Trashcan Basketball

Sometimes it feels like this is what I do at work all day. My employers really get a bang for their buck from me, I tell you whut.

More Timing of Terrorist Alerts

Pejman Yousefzadeh points to this post from Jeff Goldstein that states that although the intelligence the alerts were based on may be three or four years old, according to Fran Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, “[w]e’ve only gotten the intelligence... in the last 72 hours." That seems like a completely plausible explanation for why they recently raised the terror alert, so I take back my previous mild suspicion of the timing. Unless someone can show that the administration had this information for much longer than a few days, it's time to move on.

Bush Shifting Strategy

According to this Time article, Bush is moving away from playing to the base in order to court the moderates. But will it work?

"It's going to be damn hard to change the impressions of independent voters, who already know him, when he has 45% negatives" with them, concedes a Republican strategist. Democratic pollster Mark Penn argues, "Bush has been pursuing a suicidal strategy for the Republican base since the State of the Union, and he's dropping like a stone the entire time. He looks like he's beginning to reorient his campaign towards the center, but it is awful late to begin that."

This is a typical strategy, but Bush's problem has been that he's had to court the base for far longer than he'd like and far, far longer than Kerry. As a result, it leaves him less time and room to maneuver back to the center before the election. However, our feckless media will be unlikely to point out any inconsistencies between his words and his actions even as they drift further apart nor will many undecided voters possess the memory or desire to determine the truth, so it may work. He'll still face a difficult time reversing the hazy, unfavorable perception many voters have of him, but since, in many cases, it's not based on anything concrete, there's a chance it will work. After all, we should never underestimate the gullibility or ignorance of Americans.

Check Your News Knowledge

Via Pandagon, take the Campaign Desk's quiz to see how informed you are and whether it's about substantive issues or fluff. I got four of the "real issues" questions right and four of the" less-than-serious" ones as well.

Bush and the Intelligence Czar

Kevin Drum has the best take on Bush's "implementation" of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations:

Bottom line: the new director heads no agency, doesn't have cabinet rank, doesn't work in the White House, has no budget authority, and apparently has no reporting authority. In other words, he's just a figurehead.

This is a sham. If Bush doesn't like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations he should have the guts to say so. Instead, he and Rumsfeld have cooked up a transparent con: to the public at large it looks like he's acting decisively to take up the commission's recommendations, but anyone who knows how Washington works understands that he's really just giving them the finger.

Although I think the push to quickly implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations is irresponsible—remember, we got the PATRIOT Act last time we rushed like this—a half-hearted, incomplete implementation is bound to be even worse. I'm with Drum; if the Bush administration finds the recommendations flawed, they should say so, lay out an alternate course and try to put that in place. Their undercutting of the recommendations only adds another layer of ineffectual bureaucracy in the service of base political calculation. This way, they appear to be actively following through, without having to actually change anything. There may be real reasons to oppose some or even all of the recommendations, but to do so would require an honest, open debate on the merits and might cost some support by confusing the ignorant and lazy. Even so, if Bush is the strong, honest leader his supporters like the pretend he is, that's the course he would take, isn't it?

Stoned Starters

ESPN.com has put together an NFL All-Weed team that is, as the article states, "a team of cannabis aficionados that can hang with anybody in the NFL."

It's All About the Timing

As you've no doubt heard by now, Dean made some remarks questioning the timing of the recent terror alert regarding several financial districts. Predictably, conservatives jumped all over his comments as irresponsible paranoia.

Despite a history of a surprising number of coincidentally well-timed, but incredibly vague such announcements, the more specific nature of this warning suggested to many that it was for real. However, it seems that may be wishful thinking:

Mr. Bush spoke on a day when Americans were still digesting the terrifying warning of possible terrorist attacks against financial institutions in New York, Newark and Washington. The authorities in those cities did the right thing by stepping up security. But it's unfortunate that it is necessary to fight suspicions of political timing, suspicions the administration has sown by misleading the public on security. The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way. This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain.

Maybe the administration has some new, more concrete evidence that lead to them acting on what would otherwise be rather old, unspecific intelligence. If so, it's certainly also possible that new intelligence must be kept classified for now, leading to the appearance of a politically motivated announcement when that is not the case. However, this seems to be another one of those "wait and see" cases, not an opportunity for staunch Bush supporters to immediately decry any questions along such lines. Given what we currently know about the intelligence along with this administration's history of shameless political manipulation, it seems just as premature to judge their motives pure.

Yet More on Media Bias

As a followup to previous posts on the Groseclose and Milyo study on media bias, here's their response to the critique on Language Log. Judging from the tone of their long and detailed response, some feathers seem to have been ruffled. It seems like a good defense, but, unfortunately, it's beyond my limited knowledge of mathematics or social science. However, it's convincing enough that I'll say it looks at least likely that journalists tend to cite think tanks that are cited by Democrats in Congress more often than they cite those more beloved by Republicans. I guess we can pencil this in as yet another bias among the many journalists fall prey to and all the more reason to get your news from blogs. At least there, the biases are obvious.

Rapping to the Choir

I doubt this contest will actually have its desired effect:

Slam Bush is a groundbreaking national contest for MCs and Slam Poets that will prevent George W. Bush from snatching another term in office.

While it sure sounds entertaining, I'd be a little surprised to find out there's a lot of Republicans going to MC battles. I do like how certain they are though. They "will prevent" Bush from being reelected. Gotta respect that self-confidence.

(via Notes from a Different Kitchen)

Cyborgs, All of Us

This CNN article reports that:

Once students began carrying laptops everywhere and using them in class, an interesting dependency developed. There were times in class when I asked a question and students would glance helplessly at the machines, as if to say, "The answer isn't in my carbon-based brain, but I know I got it right here, on silicon."

Although the author gets a little carried away in the metaphor of computers as extensions of our brains, it's still an interesting topic. Is some aspect of our consciousness left behind when we turn off our computers? Or, are they nothing more than useful and sometimes distracting tools and toys that have simply changed some of the ways we think? What's the difference?

My tentative thought on the matter is that McLuhan's idea, as stated by the article, that "our senses become extended outside of our bodies" may be somewhat true while in the process of reading, or browsing the web, or driving, but once that activity is over, the experience and the mode of thought are reabsorbed, so to speak. They become ways of sensing, but are not somehow left in the devices that enable them as the article's author suggests.

Take, for instance, the idea that one's "math brain lives partly inside a calculator." This is demonstrably false. Either one knows how to do a particular calculation or one doesn't. If one knows how, then a calculator simply speeds the process up with a lower chance for error. Otherwise, it does something one is entirely incapable of doing. Unless you consider every tool ever invented an extension of either our bodies or our brains, then this borders on foolishness. To take a better example, I don't know every word (yet). When I come across an unknown word, I look it up in the dictionary. Does this mean that the dictionary is somehow an extension of myself, that it's part of my "word brain"? No. Since I don't know the words before looking them up, it's foolish and useless to claim the dictionary as some extension of my own mind.

Although this is a provocative metaphor, it doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. Perhaps it has something to say about the fact that we create tools to augment our abilities, but that's not really much of an insight.

Subservient President

In the tradition of the subservient chicken, here's the subservient president.

(via BoingBoing)

Balzac on Women

Right now I'm slowly reading Béatrix and just came across this passage:

The most intelligent woman to the most foolish, the most candid to the shrewdest is no longer mistress of her secret in the moment when it bursts from her to the eyes of another woman. Too reserved or not enough, a free and luminous look, the mysterious lowering of eyes, all betray thus the sentiment most difficult to hide; indifference has something about it so completely cold that it is impossible to simulate. Women possess a genius for nuance, they use it themselves too often to not know them all; and on those occasions where their eyes embrace a rival from head to toe they divine the slightest movement of a foot under a dress, an imperceptible convulsion of the waist, and know the significance of what would, for a man, seem insignificant.

Ah, women. This passage perfectly exemplifies the attitude 2blowhards bemoaned as in decline, namely, the idea that there's something mysterious and different from men about women that's worth exploring and understanding. The way this passage attributes to women an almost supernatural ability to read and understand others results from Balzac's implicit acceptance of this attitude. No one who saw women as little more than accessories or as equivalent to men could have written it.

Memento

Two real cases of amnesia similar to what afflicts the main character in Memento:

She remembered waking up, fixing up a bagel and coffee, and nothing else for about ten hours. What’s amazing is she had plans to meet friends for brunch, and followed through on those plans. She got in her car, drove half an hour (following printed directions) to a place she’d never been, and joined her friends for a meal. One of the friends remarked that she was acting odd, confusedly repeating remarks and questions. But apparently she was not so odd that they stopped eating, or cancelled a leisurely bike ride across the countryside. It was only at the end of the day’s activities that someone was concerned enough to take her to the hospital. But after a few hours in the ER, her ability to lay down new memories returned. She felt fine, except for the disappointment of “missing” the brunch and bike ride.

I almost want to experience this just to see what it's like, but I imagine it's not a good sign of health when things like that start happening. So, I guess I'll just have to drink until I blackout.

The Role of Reading

A topic I've mentioned a few times in passing gets discussed in more depth by Erin O'Connor in a post about an article about a new book titled "Why Read?" O'Connor quotes this passage:

To me, the best way to think about reading is as life's grand second chance. All of us grow up once: we pass through a process of socialization. We learn about right and wrong and good and bad from our parents, then from our teachers or religious guides. Gradually, we are instilled with the common sense that conservative writers like Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson thought of as a great collective work. To them, common sense is infused with all that has been learned over time through trial and error, human frustration, sorrow and joy. In fact, a well-socialized being is something like a work of art.

Yet for many people, the process of socialization doesn't quite work. The values they acquire from all the well-meaning authorities don't fit them. And it is these people who often become obsessed readers. They don't read for information, and they don't read for beautiful escape. No, they read to remake themselves. They read to be socialized again, not into the ways of their city or village this time but into another world with different values. Such people want to revise, or even to displace, the influence their parents have had on them. They want to adopt values they perceive to be higher or perhaps just better suited to their natures.

This fits nicely with our previous gropings towards a defense of reading that pointed out the way literature can transmit wisdom and increases empathy in a sensitive reader along with its many other pleasures. I find it interesting that we seem to be almost running from "l'art pour l'art" nowadays, looking instead to rediscover the utilitarian underpinnings behind literature and art in general. It seems the threat of obsolescence is refocusing the minds of those who promote the arts on those aspects that everyone can relate to and value rather than the jargon-laden obscurities of much post-modern theorizing.