Free Will: Philosophy v. Neuroscience
A philosopher further confuses the question. On purpose, I mean. Often, that's what good philosophers do.
Here's an example:
Here's an example:
DB: "Salon Editors: We Should Have Let the Axis Win"
The only reason the aircraft that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was named Enola Gay was so the military industrial complex could blame the dawn of the atomic age on the LGBT community. The American experiment has been nothing but a massive plot to denigrate protected classes.Their satire is at its best when it is so close to the truth. I have read serious versions of this argument pointed at the first World War.
Let’s be candid, it’s taken over 70 years for Americans to have a serious conversation about National Socialism and firmly divide people along racial lines. Thanks a lot “Allies.”
During that time, what has America actually done for the world? Given us an addiction to technologies dependent on fossil fuels? Domestic surveillance techniques? Patriarchy? The great American melting pot is more like a great American chop shop of appropriated culture.
House of the Dying Sun
Wretchard has a good one this evening. Friday afternoon is a strange time to post your best stuff. I wonder if he's hoping people won't read it.
But it can't stop the tide.
In retrospect the postwar American world can be said to have gone off the rails in one of two places. Liberals will put the date in March, 2003, when the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein began. Although the action was supported at the time by both political parties, the outrage liberals felt at what they believed to be the deception surrounding the operation created a reaction that made the second critical date inevitable: the 2008 election of Barack Obama.Of course he's right, as regards Sanders and Trump. Only Clinton stands for trying to prop up the failing regime. She is the candidate of every remaining institution. Maybe that will carry her over the line, in spite of her felonies, in spite of her weakness.
Obama was regarded -- and is still regarded -- by many conservatives as possessing the same degree of delegitimizing characteristics now attributed to Donald Trump. In this view, the accession of Obama, not the invasion of Iraq, marked the moment Everything Changed. It also made the rise Trump historically inevitable. The chain runs thus: Iraq --> Obama --> Trump/Hillary. Where you start is optional. Where you end is unknown. Ironically September 11, 2001 plays an ambiguous role in the historiography. For some reason that date is regarded by some as occurring Before the Fall....
If political columnist Ron Fournier is right about this election cycle, it is less about achieving incremental policy change than precipitating a radical institutional change . In that case the current unpopularity contest can be seen as an deliberate process to increase instability by hoping the worst man wins, not in order to continue the status quo but to tear things down and start afresh.
But it can't stop the tide.
Friday Night AMV
Don't Smoke.
(This is very clever editing, because I've seen this series and this is *not* what it is about at all.)
(This is very clever editing, because I've seen this series and this is *not* what it is about at all.)
Judgmental Map of Atlanta
Inspired by AVI's map of Massachusetts stereotypes, I looked for a similar map of Georgia. There isn't one, probably because the kind of clever Buzzfeed-types who make such maps don't know anything about Georgia. Outside of Atlanta and perhaps Savannah, the whole thing would be marked, "Here be Dragons."
But I did find a map of the closer-in parts of metro Atlanta that fits the bill.
I went to High School in "Prime Real Estate." The part they call "The Mexico," which is properly known as Chamblee, I've always heard called "Chambodia." It has at least as many Asian immigrants as Mexican ones, and it's an excellent source for authentic cuisine from anywhere. If you hit the area, try Los Americas or El Taco Veloz.
But I did find a map of the closer-in parts of metro Atlanta that fits the bill.
I went to High School in "Prime Real Estate." The part they call "The Mexico," which is properly known as Chamblee, I've always heard called "Chambodia." It has at least as many Asian immigrants as Mexican ones, and it's an excellent source for authentic cuisine from anywhere. If you hit the area, try Los Americas or El Taco Veloz.
Vox Starts to Catch On After All
They're still describing this in gaslighting terms -- Trump supporters 'think' this and that -- but they do seem to have had a moment of clarity.
UPDATE: Via Drudge, someone whose moment of clarity has yet to come.
UPDATE: Via Drudge, someone whose moment of clarity has yet to come.
VFW: Speak For Yourself, Buddy... er, Mr. President
The Veterans of Foreign Wars were not amused by President Obama's recent suggestion that their membership are fools.
No Wonder She Has Such Clear Vision of Her Destiny
In an article on Clinton's inner circle, a representative email circulated among her staff:
UPDATE: On the other hand, this technique works great as long as your candidate is in on the joke.
It's only when you begin to believe your own BS that Nemesis begins slipping up behind you.
“If you get a chance — please tell HRC that she was a ROCK STAR yesterday. Everything about her 'performance' was what makes her unique, beloved, and destined for even more greatness. She sets a standard that lesser mortals can only dream of emulating.”The wiser advice was whispered by that slave in Roman Imperial times: "Remember you are mortal."
UPDATE: On the other hand, this technique works great as long as your candidate is in on the joke.
It's only when you begin to believe your own BS that Nemesis begins slipping up behind you.
Why Not Murder?
Hot Air has some thoughts from a top Vox editor on the righteousness of violence against Trump rallies.
I mean, I understand the Catholic objection -- that murder is an inherently disordered act. But surely you won't want to impose some religious test on your politics, Vox. Why not have the courage of your convictions?
UPDATE: Vox today runs an article called "Donald Trump Rallies Are Only Going To Get More Dangerous For Everyone." Whose fault is that? Trump's, of course.
UPDATE: Althouse: "Yells of "[F***] you!" are heard, along with vuvuzelas and chants of 'Trump go home!'"
Vuvuzelas, is it? Now we know what we're dealing with here.
UPDATE: Vox suspends, but does not fire, its editor. Go sit in timeout until after the election -- everyone knows you don't actually tell people to riot. You just say that it's completely understandable that people riot given how awful Trump is, and that it's certain to get worse.
So what's so wrong with just killing Trump? Wouldn't it obviate the need for all this destruction of property, all these clashes in the street? Doesn't everyone say that they'd kill Hitler if they could go back in time and do so?Advice: If Trump comes to your town, start a riot.So …. who exactly is the fascist in this scenario? The Week’s Michael Dougherty seemed to wonder that himself, asking Rensin what exactly he saw as the limits of “legitimate” political violence. The answer? Murder’s out … but that’s about it:
— Emmett Rensin (@emmettrensin) June 3, 2016
@michaelbd Destroying property is legitimate. Shouting down is legitimate. Disruption of all events is legitimate. Murder isn't.So any violence short of murder is legitimate, as long as the political aim is pure enough, presumably. If you’re wondering what kind of violence isn’t legitimate, Jeryl Bier found this line in Rensin’s sand from last year:
— Emmett Rensin (@emmettrensin) June 3, 2016
Here's @emmettrensin on "literal violence": https://t.co/gmYzGWfbHO pic.twitter.com/HPYejDklOmA “Stop Hillary” wifi password is literal violence, while destruction of property and shutting down free speech is just legitimate political action.
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) June 3, 2016
I mean, I understand the Catholic objection -- that murder is an inherently disordered act. But surely you won't want to impose some religious test on your politics, Vox. Why not have the courage of your convictions?
UPDATE: Vox today runs an article called "Donald Trump Rallies Are Only Going To Get More Dangerous For Everyone." Whose fault is that? Trump's, of course.
UPDATE: Althouse: "Yells of "[F***] you!" are heard, along with vuvuzelas and chants of 'Trump go home!'"
Vuvuzelas, is it? Now we know what we're dealing with here.
UPDATE: Vox suspends, but does not fire, its editor. Go sit in timeout until after the election -- everyone knows you don't actually tell people to riot. You just say that it's completely understandable that people riot given how awful Trump is, and that it's certain to get worse.
An Interesting Point
I don't know who Daredevil is, but I gather it's a superhero thing. Nevertheless, I was over at Brandwine Books to see what Lars Walker has been writing about recently, and he has a post that discusses the series. I found this point interesting:
For me, it's kind of neat to see that sort of thing reflected in fiction.
When Kingpin calls Vanessa on the carpet for concealed carry, viewers learn that she’s not some ingénue, but rather an empowered woman with her own ambitions: “We’ve been sitting here talking for hours, and you’re going to insult me like I have no idea what you really do? … I know you’re a dangerous man. That’s why I brought a gun to a dinner date.”Way back when we were first dating, it was a point in my future wife's favor for me that she carried a knife. Though she later admitted to me that she wasn't used to men who carried guns, she accepted it as a risk worth taking for me.
For me, it's kind of neat to see that sort of thing reflected in fiction.
Former Delta Force Leader Uninvited From Ft. Riley Prayer Breakfast
LTG (R) Jerry Boykin was one of the greats in his day, and now seems to spend most of his time on issues of faith. So of course that's where they hit him:
The MRFF has a page in which it was asked whether it focuses on beating up Christians exclusively, or if it sometimes worries about other religions such as Islam. You know, Islam: that religion that has resulted in several blue-on-blue incidents such as the fragging at the start of the Iraq War, or the Ft. Drum shootings.
Their response is several paragraphs long, but here is the nut: "We simply do not receive similar complaints involving any religion other than Christianity."
Aristotle said that justice lies in treating similar cases similarly. The big question there, as here, is what constitutes "similar."
A Kansas military base abruptly canceled an upcoming prayer breakfast that featured retired Lt. General Jerry Boykin after complaints were lodged that Boykin is anti-Muslim and anti-gay.I don't share Boykin's views, but to find them "sickening" represents a pretty harsh opposition to his mode of faith -- in fact, at least as harsh a mode as the one Boykin aims at Islam, which is one of the MRFF's complaints against him.
Military Religious Freedom Foundation founder Mikey Weinstein told Army Times that Boykin’s invitation had caused great angst among soldiers at Fort Riley – leading some to break down in tears.
“I have clients of ours weeping on the phone about this,” he said.
Weeping? Oh, please.
“I sincerely doubt that America can expect to win wars if the people who are tasked to do so are frightened by an old retired general with biblical views and a testimony of faith,” Boykin told me.
Boykin, an original member of Delta Force and an executive vice president of the Family Research Council, was scheduled to deliver remarks at a June 6th prayer breakfast. The event was set to be held in conjunction with the 1st Infantry Division’s Victory Week celebration....
“He sows hatred and heinous divisiveness with his sickening screed of fundamentalist Christian supremacy, primacy, exclusivity and triumphalism,” Weinstein wrote in a complaint to Fort Riley.
The MRFF has a page in which it was asked whether it focuses on beating up Christians exclusively, or if it sometimes worries about other religions such as Islam. You know, Islam: that religion that has resulted in several blue-on-blue incidents such as the fragging at the start of the Iraq War, or the Ft. Drum shootings.
Their response is several paragraphs long, but here is the nut: "We simply do not receive similar complaints involving any religion other than Christianity."
Aristotle said that justice lies in treating similar cases similarly. The big question there, as here, is what constitutes "similar."
Hahahahahahaha
NYT Headline: "Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say."
Where've you been these last few years?
Trump is the only one who even might prosecute top members of the Clinton machine. If Hillary Clinton is elected, it'll be open season for high-level corruption, the sale of American power to the highest bidder, and bribery on a scale never seen before in the United States.
I don't know if Trump would be good or bad for the rule of law. But I know he can hardly be worse. What's surprising to me is that the Times can't see how ridiculous it is to put forward the Clinton machine as Guardian of the Rule of Law.
I can see the slogan now: 'Vote Fox for Henhouse Sheriff!'
UPDATE: Related: "We’re all thinking the same thing but an RNC spokesman was the first to get to say it: Of the two major-party nominees this year, it ain’t Trump who mishandled classified information."
UPDATE: Also related: We hear about how Trump marks the rise of brownshirt fascism, but somehow it's his rallies that keep getting attacked by mobs.
None of this stuff is of the tu quoque fallacy. It's not that Trump's opponents do it too. It's that the charge that he does it overlooks the fact that his opponent is far worse on all of these issues.
Where've you been these last few years?
Trump is the only one who even might prosecute top members of the Clinton machine. If Hillary Clinton is elected, it'll be open season for high-level corruption, the sale of American power to the highest bidder, and bribery on a scale never seen before in the United States.
I don't know if Trump would be good or bad for the rule of law. But I know he can hardly be worse. What's surprising to me is that the Times can't see how ridiculous it is to put forward the Clinton machine as Guardian of the Rule of Law.
I can see the slogan now: 'Vote Fox for Henhouse Sheriff!'
UPDATE: Related: "We’re all thinking the same thing but an RNC spokesman was the first to get to say it: Of the two major-party nominees this year, it ain’t Trump who mishandled classified information."
UPDATE: Also related: We hear about how Trump marks the rise of brownshirt fascism, but somehow it's his rallies that keep getting attacked by mobs.
None of this stuff is of the tu quoque fallacy. It's not that Trump's opponents do it too. It's that the charge that he does it overlooks the fact that his opponent is far worse on all of these issues.
Not the Duffel Blog
Actually, the Washington Post: "Female-named hurricanes kill more than male hurricanes because people don’t respect them, study finds."
This Happened in Georgia?
A burqa-clad assailant allegedly attacked a woman with her own American flag.
Amusingly, the article posts a burqaless mugshot. If maintaining modesty at radical Islamic levels is important to you, you'd better obey the law.
Amusingly, the article posts a burqaless mugshot. If maintaining modesty at radical Islamic levels is important to you, you'd better obey the law.
Guns Save Lives
Sometimes, they're the right lives.
You can increase your odds of it turning out right by practicing and training regularly.
You can increase your odds of it turning out right by practicing and training regularly.
"Putting a Wife to Work..."
I've been sharply critical of Donald Trump's remarks on women throughout this election season, but this time I think the media may be misreading what he said. He's not suggesting that it's dangerous for a husband to have a wife who works. If I understand him he's suggesting that it's dangerous to employ one's own wife as a business subordinate.
Now we have all these rules about sexual harassment in the workplace just because we recognize that it's perilous to go the other way -- to seek a wife (or husband) from among one's business associates. The idea that it's dangerous to combine the two spheres of engagement is thus not a very strange thing to say at all, especially not from a feminist perspective: they've been driving most of these rules for just this reason.
So why should it be surprising to learn that it works the other way too? If the creation of intimacy can put undesirable stresses on a business relationship, why would it be surprising that bringing an intimate relationship into the workplace might put undesirable stresses upon the intimate relationship? It seems well-established that the two relationships are at cross-purposes in certain respects.
On the other hand, there are millions of stories of immigrant families who came to America and built a successful business around their family ties. Just over the hill is an Indian family who runs a small convenience store. The father, wife, and son all take turns staffing it, and the revenue is managed as family income. This program has worked to the good of generations of immigrants, helping them become established in what can be a difficult economy.
Still, it's not weird to think that the business and the intimate don't go together well. The American business environment is an ideally asexual, professional environment built on competition between atomic actors for position, responsibility, and salary. A marriage is an ideally sexual, intimate environment in which resources are pooled for the common good. It should be no surprise at all to learn that the two forms wear against each other. The conclusion that they might be better kept separate seems like wisdom to me.
Now we have all these rules about sexual harassment in the workplace just because we recognize that it's perilous to go the other way -- to seek a wife (or husband) from among one's business associates. The idea that it's dangerous to combine the two spheres of engagement is thus not a very strange thing to say at all, especially not from a feminist perspective: they've been driving most of these rules for just this reason.
So why should it be surprising to learn that it works the other way too? If the creation of intimacy can put undesirable stresses on a business relationship, why would it be surprising that bringing an intimate relationship into the workplace might put undesirable stresses upon the intimate relationship? It seems well-established that the two relationships are at cross-purposes in certain respects.
On the other hand, there are millions of stories of immigrant families who came to America and built a successful business around their family ties. Just over the hill is an Indian family who runs a small convenience store. The father, wife, and son all take turns staffing it, and the revenue is managed as family income. This program has worked to the good of generations of immigrants, helping them become established in what can be a difficult economy.
Still, it's not weird to think that the business and the intimate don't go together well. The American business environment is an ideally asexual, professional environment built on competition between atomic actors for position, responsibility, and salary. A marriage is an ideally sexual, intimate environment in which resources are pooled for the common good. It should be no surprise at all to learn that the two forms wear against each other. The conclusion that they might be better kept separate seems like wisdom to me.
Um, Bill...
The retired former President chides Trump supporters.
Not that social media and self-radicalization aren't a problem. Your example, however, was particularly poorly chosen.
“The last serious terrorist incident in the United States occurred in San Bernardino, Calif. Those people were converted over the internet,” Clinton said. “You can build all the walls you want. You can build them all across Canada; they got a bunch of foreigners in Canada. You could build a seawall in the Atlantic and a seawall in the Pacific. …. And then you could send the Navy to the Gulf of Mexico to block anybody else, and put all the planes in the Air Force up. You could not keep out the social media.”Actually, the wife went to an Islamic school in Pakistan before returning to Saudi Arabia. She and her husband met online, and he was probably radicalized by her, but he also went to Saudi Arabia for a while -- that is probably where they received whatever training they had that allowed them to build destructive devices and execute the attack.
Not that social media and self-radicalization aren't a problem. Your example, however, was particularly poorly chosen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)