Listening to National Public Radio's Morning Edition this morning (Thursday, July 22), I came away awed and amazed at the power of internet activists and bloggers. According to NPR's Ari Shapiro, someone can post something on a blog attacking a federal employee, and, lo and behold, the Obama administration immediately caves in. How exactly Glenn Greenwald has not caused them immediately to bring criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush is beyond me. The Great Blue Satan has said that that the officials responsible for administering the HAMP program should be fired. I expect their resignation tomorrow.
Since I recognize the awesome power inherent in being some blogger somewhere, I wanted to post my wish list for sacrificial lambs (or scapegoats). But with great power comes great responsibility, so I'll reserve my ire for the one being worthy of my unhinged hatred: Bo the Dog.
As we all know, Bo is a Portugese Water Dog. Since he is Portugese, he must be an illegal alien because I know he does not have a green card. And I am reliably informed by an anonymous source that he once barked at a Fila Brasileiro and did not bark at an English Setter. Clear evidence of elitism--Filas are working dogs--and racial bias!
What I really do not understand is how the magic happens. How did the blog post travel to the eyes and ears of the Obama administration and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack? I have to assume that they spend their days poring over the blog-work of activists, searching out the blogosphere for specious attacks from sites with a history of misleadingly edited videos. Or if Vilsack does not do this himself, perhaps his secretaries and aides spend their days on these sites, and take their allegations as gospel.
If the Obama administration does not constantly monitor these websites, then the only other possibility I can see is that Breitbart has some form of long-range brain wave manipulation device. I mean, it's clear from the Shapiro's report that no other intermediate "News" organization could have been responsible for promulgating the falsehoods and baseless allegations in Breitbart's selectively edited video. Indeed, if there were such a major media outlet that repeatedly played the video and reported the story as though it were accurate, without independent verification, then obviously Shapiro would have a responsibility to report on them as well. If Breitbart is guilty when he pushed a video without adequate verification, then any other "News" or activist organization that did the same would be equally responsible.
Here's a video from Rachel Maddow explaining the story along with the series of such stories on Fox "News" and placing it in the historical context of such attempts at stoking racial fears. Sadly, NPR does not seem to feel it has the responsibility to fully inform its listeners, and it continues to shield Fox "News" from criticism even when their irresponsible attacks go so far over the line that even the mainstream media reacts.
Update: This No More Mister Nice Blog post is obviously much better informed about Fox's role in all this than I am. Also this Media Matters post. The point remains that the Obama administration is not responding directly to Andrew Breitbart, and Fox clearly has been flogging these stories, and Fox on-line has been flogging this story in particular.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Constructing a Philosophy Paper when You Have No Original Idea
Suppose, as is usually the case in philosophy, we have nothing interesting or original to say, but we want to get a publication. Where do we start?
1. Look around at the journals for the last couple of years and see what other philosophers are talking about.
Make sure you don't look any farther back than 5 years. Remember the concept of philosophy, I'll follow Wikipedia for convenience:
And those fundamental, general problems change every five years.
I'm sorry. What I mean to say is that as we inexorably march toward truth on those problems, we solve sub-problems that are steps in the resolution of the overall problems, and every five years or so these subproblems are resolved, leading to new ones as philosophy advances.
2. Pick a topic that (a) you have enough background in that you won't have to start your research from scratch and (b) you can come up with some opinion on that no one else has supported. Don't worry whether your theory makes sense or can be reasonably justified. Just make sure it's new and different.
3. Pick a major philosopher who has written on this topic and summarize his/her recent work. It helps if the author has just published a major book that is under much discussion.
4. Find some earlier, obscure philosopher who wrote on the same or a related topic. Obviously, the more obscure and respected, the better. Wittgenstein works best. This works because Wittgenstein's later philosophy can relate to anything from metaphysics, epistemology, even moral philosophy (with his work on rule following, for example).
5. Interpret your obscure philosopher in a way that supports your position on the topic. This way you can rely on the authority of the esteemed philosopher. So, your actual position doesn't have to be well-supported by argument. Your view is presumed to be reasonable because Big-W said it. Don't worry about making your interpretation plausible either. No one really understands him anyway.
We all know that you can't argue from authority in philosophy. But we do shift the burden of proof to anyone disagreeing with us by appeal to authority. I know this is a distinction without a difference, but just pretend it makes sense that philosophical authority can provide sufficient plausibility for your view that you don't need to argue for it, just to defend it against arguments against it.
6. Show how your position avoids at least one of the recent problems noted with the other, recent philosopher's account. Don't worry if your view is susceptible to other, more serious problems. All you really need is to respond in some way to a contemporary problem so that it looks as though you've advanced the discussion somehow.
7. Tada! Declare victory; you're done. You've now suggested an original, interesting solution to a traditional problem--even though it raises other, possibly much worse, problems. Sure, your interpretation and solution may not really make sense, and probably raises much worse problems than it solves. But that just means you've got the basis for another publication!
(Results may vary. No guarantee of publication implied.)
1. Look around at the journals for the last couple of years and see what other philosophers are talking about.
Make sure you don't look any farther back than 5 years. Remember the concept of philosophy, I'll follow Wikipedia for convenience:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
And those fundamental, general problems change every five years.
I'm sorry. What I mean to say is that as we inexorably march toward truth on those problems, we solve sub-problems that are steps in the resolution of the overall problems, and every five years or so these subproblems are resolved, leading to new ones as philosophy advances.
2. Pick a topic that (a) you have enough background in that you won't have to start your research from scratch and (b) you can come up with some opinion on that no one else has supported. Don't worry whether your theory makes sense or can be reasonably justified. Just make sure it's new and different.
3. Pick a major philosopher who has written on this topic and summarize his/her recent work. It helps if the author has just published a major book that is under much discussion.
4. Find some earlier, obscure philosopher who wrote on the same or a related topic. Obviously, the more obscure and respected, the better. Wittgenstein works best. This works because Wittgenstein's later philosophy can relate to anything from metaphysics, epistemology, even moral philosophy (with his work on rule following, for example).
5. Interpret your obscure philosopher in a way that supports your position on the topic. This way you can rely on the authority of the esteemed philosopher. So, your actual position doesn't have to be well-supported by argument. Your view is presumed to be reasonable because Big-W said it. Don't worry about making your interpretation plausible either. No one really understands him anyway.
We all know that you can't argue from authority in philosophy. But we do shift the burden of proof to anyone disagreeing with us by appeal to authority. I know this is a distinction without a difference, but just pretend it makes sense that philosophical authority can provide sufficient plausibility for your view that you don't need to argue for it, just to defend it against arguments against it.
6. Show how your position avoids at least one of the recent problems noted with the other, recent philosopher's account. Don't worry if your view is susceptible to other, more serious problems. All you really need is to respond in some way to a contemporary problem so that it looks as though you've advanced the discussion somehow.
7. Tada! Declare victory; you're done. You've now suggested an original, interesting solution to a traditional problem--even though it raises other, possibly much worse, problems. Sure, your interpretation and solution may not really make sense, and probably raises much worse problems than it solves. But that just means you've got the basis for another publication!
(Results may vary. No guarantee of publication implied.)
Does Andrew Breitbart Hate America?
After hearing about the controversy over remarks made by, and the forced resignation of, Shirley Sherrod, I looked at the source of this video. I found a story that raised many questions for me, but, ultimately, I think, it speaks for itself.
The story is about an addition to Andrew Breitbart's massive media empire(tm) called Big Peace which is supposed to revolutionize our view of national security. Now, right off, I was suspicious that this was unamerican because, really, what American wants Big Peace (which I assume is a lot of peace)? And certain quotes from the article, that are in no way taken out of context and selected in no way to embarrass the author, I found further troubling claims.
To wit:
My goodness, I thought, can Breitbart's site and its author, a Mr. Mike Flynn, blame America for every problem in the world?
And what about their view of St. Ronald Reagan? Describing the 1980s, he writes that people,
Apparently, Mike Flynn believes that Reagan was not really popular. He writes,
Does Flynn border on libel of America's Most Beloved President(tm)? Finally, he concludes that our new threat is from Islamic Fundamentalism, but it's not as bad as some previous threats.
At this point, Flynn clearly has gone beyond the pale in besmirching the blessed memory of St. Joseph McCarthy who proved the existence of communists in the US State Department, Hollywood, academia, and the American media. The American Left did not just make excuses for Communism, but actively worked to undermine America. I worry that Flynn and Breitbart's Big Peace might just have lost touch with reality.
The story is about an addition to Andrew Breitbart's massive media empire(tm) called Big Peace which is supposed to revolutionize our view of national security. Now, right off, I was suspicious that this was unamerican because, really, what American wants Big Peace (which I assume is a lot of peace)? And certain quotes from the article, that are in no way taken out of context and selected in no way to embarrass the author, I found further troubling claims.
To wit:
Most every problem in the world could somehow be traced back to the U.S.
My goodness, I thought, can Breitbart's site and its author, a Mr. Mike Flynn, blame America for every problem in the world?
And what about their view of St. Ronald Reagan? Describing the 1980s, he writes that people,
were openly worried about a “warmongering” US President who didn’t understand complex foreign policy and might just start a war for kicks.
Apparently, Mike Flynn believes that Reagan was not really popular. He writes,
it is impossible to appreciate the level of hatred and animosity that was directed at the 40th President during those years.
[I]t couldn’t be that the public agreed with Reagan; rather, they were “duped” by his rhetorical skills.
Does Flynn border on libel of America's Most Beloved President(tm)? Finally, he concludes that our new threat is from Islamic Fundamentalism, but it's not as bad as some previous threats.
To be sure, in some respects, the threat isn’t quite as existential as that of the Cold War. Thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at every city in America is an order of magnitude different than an Iran, no matter how bat-shit crazy, with a handful of nukes. But, in other respects, it is far more challenging. Because, not only do we allow this fundamentalism to thrive in the West, we make excuses for it.
At this point, Flynn clearly has gone beyond the pale in besmirching the blessed memory of St. Joseph McCarthy who proved the existence of communists in the US State Department, Hollywood, academia, and the American media. The American Left did not just make excuses for Communism, but actively worked to undermine America. I worry that Flynn and Breitbart's Big Peace might just have lost touch with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)