A scene in the eminently watchable Michael Clayton shows a bedroom wall adorned with a message from lawyer-gone-mental-patient Arthur Edens (played by Tom Wilkinson): "Make Believe It's Not Just Madness".
What is it supposed to mean? I won't get into the movie, but will offer the following interpretations:
(1) It's not only madness, it's also something else, unspecified. It could be madness and indigestion. Or madness and foot rot. Pretend it's so.
(2) It's not only madness, it's a mix of madness with other explanatory factors, like jealosy, or shame, or guilt. Pretend it's this larger web of humanizing factors. Not just madness.
(3) It's madness, but it's not just. He had no right to go mad. So, make believe it's madness point blank, without just cause.
Is it ((not just) madness) or (not (just madness))?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
That's (not) Hypocrisy!
David Shuster on MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue regularly has a segment on hypocrisy, typically devoted to highlighting anything unflattering about Republicans. (Hey, who ever said cable news was real journalism?). Today he points out that Republicans like Eric Cantor originally attacked the stimulus bill for not adequately addressing the housing downturn; now after the latest (how many more billion?) housing legislation, he's declared that we can't afford it, and opposes it. "That's hypocrisy!" Shuster exclaims, the satisfying tagline to the ever-entertaining Hypocrisy Watch on 1600.
If anyone cares, it's not hypocrisy, by any definition I'm familiar with. It's perhaps opportunism, and certainly it's prima facie inconsistent, but if it's hypocrisy, Cantor needs not just to change his mind, but to profess something publically while doing something at odds with his words privately. Espousing, at different times, two public views that taken together seem inconsistent is not hypocrisy. But then, real hypocrisy is revealed typically only in scandals, and for programs that air five days a week, who's got the time to wait for those?
If anyone cares, it's not hypocrisy, by any definition I'm familiar with. It's perhaps opportunism, and certainly it's prima facie inconsistent, but if it's hypocrisy, Cantor needs not just to change his mind, but to profess something publically while doing something at odds with his words privately. Espousing, at different times, two public views that taken together seem inconsistent is not hypocrisy. But then, real hypocrisy is revealed typically only in scandals, and for programs that air five days a week, who's got the time to wait for those?
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Touch
She was lonely, and felt fragile, and wished he would move closer. But it wasn't the physical proximity but the evidence that his attention was on her, and so when he put his hand on her shoulder, she felt better, and turned away. He layed in silence for some time while she drifted to sleep. Later he left the house for cigarettes at the corner, and stood and smoked and watched the stars late into that dark night. The stars shone brightly.
Finding Logic in Politics, Part I
(1) Running up the deficit is bad (tenet of responsible government, as both Democrats and Republicans insist)
(2) Republicans ran up the deficit (fact)
(3) Democrats say: Republicans shouldn't lecture Democrats about running up the deficit (refer to (2))
(4) Democrats are now running up the deficit (fact)
(5) Republicans say: Democrats shouldn't be running up the deficit (refer to (1))
So it goes that both sides score political points that sound good on cable news, but given the bi-partisan acknowledgement that running a large (nay, massive) tab for future tax payers is bad, the parties are as usual tangled in their own webs. If the stimulus bill doesn't work (and by the way, with something as complicated as the modern global economy, no one knows what will work), the Democrats just voted themselves out of office two years in advance. Republicans, perhaps not from an appreciation of the unpredictability of complex systems per se, have sounded off in usual form about "pork", but in factual support of their opposition our deficit grows larger now on the Democrats' watch, and add to this, no one currently breathing air today has any clue if the latest bill will end the recession sooner, or prolong it by creating inflationary problems, or do nothing. No one knows. How could they? You'd have to be Laplace's Demon. And so it's a bold, swift move indeed.
(2) Republicans ran up the deficit (fact)
(3) Democrats say: Republicans shouldn't lecture Democrats about running up the deficit (refer to (2))
(4) Democrats are now running up the deficit (fact)
(5) Republicans say: Democrats shouldn't be running up the deficit (refer to (1))
So it goes that both sides score political points that sound good on cable news, but given the bi-partisan acknowledgement that running a large (nay, massive) tab for future tax payers is bad, the parties are as usual tangled in their own webs. If the stimulus bill doesn't work (and by the way, with something as complicated as the modern global economy, no one knows what will work), the Democrats just voted themselves out of office two years in advance. Republicans, perhaps not from an appreciation of the unpredictability of complex systems per se, have sounded off in usual form about "pork", but in factual support of their opposition our deficit grows larger now on the Democrats' watch, and add to this, no one currently breathing air today has any clue if the latest bill will end the recession sooner, or prolong it by creating inflationary problems, or do nothing. No one knows. How could they? You'd have to be Laplace's Demon. And so it's a bold, swift move indeed.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Hopefully, I'll Poke You in the Eye
Since I'm on the linguistic kick, consider:
"Hopefully, we'll get this done, Mary", said John, nervously eyeing the clock.
The word "hopefully" is an adverb, ladies and gents, which means it modifies a verb. So, in the sentence above, John told Mary that he'd get it done while being full of hope. He'd do it, with hope. But that's not common parlance. Common parlance is to interpret John as saying that he hopes that he'll get it done in the first place. Which is different. "I hope that we'll get this done Mary" does not equal "I'll get this done with hope, Mary". (And why the hell would Mary care if he did it with hope? My guess is that she just wants it done.)
"Hopefully, he trudged the long way home, trying hard to quell that sinking feeling that no one would be there to greet him." Correct. "Hopefully, he knocked on Martha's door, flowers in hand." Okay. The poor sap is full of hope. Up to you Martha.
Other adverbs, the little devils that modify our verbs: "We'll get it mopped up quickly, ma'am, and sorry for the mess", which means that you'll do the mopping action and in fact quickly (and that you're apologizing to the madam for the mess).
I hope that this is clear.
"Hopefully, we'll get this done, Mary", said John, nervously eyeing the clock.
The word "hopefully" is an adverb, ladies and gents, which means it modifies a verb. So, in the sentence above, John told Mary that he'd get it done while being full of hope. He'd do it, with hope. But that's not common parlance. Common parlance is to interpret John as saying that he hopes that he'll get it done in the first place. Which is different. "I hope that we'll get this done Mary" does not equal "I'll get this done with hope, Mary". (And why the hell would Mary care if he did it with hope? My guess is that she just wants it done.)
"Hopefully, he trudged the long way home, trying hard to quell that sinking feeling that no one would be there to greet him." Correct. "Hopefully, he knocked on Martha's door, flowers in hand." Okay. The poor sap is full of hope. Up to you Martha.
Other adverbs, the little devils that modify our verbs: "We'll get it mopped up quickly, ma'am, and sorry for the mess", which means that you'll do the mopping action and in fact quickly (and that you're apologizing to the madam for the mess).
I hope that this is clear.
It Begs the Question
The other day I heard an expert on MSNBC talking about Afghanistan (or was it Iraq?), and at some point he offered that such and such begs the question of whether we should do such and such (as you can tell, I can't remember the details of the discussion).
As a philosopher, this use of begs the question is annoying. Begging the question as even an undergraduate student in argument or logic will know, means assuming what you are attempting to prove. The classic example is the ditty about knowing the Bible is the word of God because it says so. In the modern context, we can beg the question about troop levels in Afghanistan by first assuming that they should be higher and then concluding so. Or what have you.
What our expert meant to say was that such and such raises the question. Suggesting or raising questions is what circumstances and observations do. Begging questions is much less common, and must by necessity involve some circular reasoning. So, to the pundits and smart people out there and just to everyone, stop begging the question when you're just raising one.
As a philosopher, this use of begs the question is annoying. Begging the question as even an undergraduate student in argument or logic will know, means assuming what you are attempting to prove. The classic example is the ditty about knowing the Bible is the word of God because it says so. In the modern context, we can beg the question about troop levels in Afghanistan by first assuming that they should be higher and then concluding so. Or what have you.
What our expert meant to say was that such and such raises the question. Suggesting or raising questions is what circumstances and observations do. Begging questions is much less common, and must by necessity involve some circular reasoning. So, to the pundits and smart people out there and just to everyone, stop begging the question when you're just raising one.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Snookered
We're getting snookered. This is bad. Who remembers the "Troubled Assets Relief Program" (TARP), 700 billion in spending approved just months ago? Well, that's not interesting anymore. Silence on TARP. Now another 800 billion from the latest American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill. This will work!
TARP was supposed to right the ship. That's how it was sold, to the sceptical public (remember?). And yet, no discussion anymore, nothing. And now a new bill presumably because we have a new administration (TARP was Bush, and therefore failed), and it's another 800 billion. What about TARP? Sold to us in the same way: huge spending necessary to avert disaster. Months later we can't even remember what happened to the money, or why it was approved.
In the meantime our debt grows to proportions never seen before, and our elected officials play these games with the public. Why not, the public has a short memory...
TARP was supposed to right the ship. That's how it was sold, to the sceptical public (remember?). And yet, no discussion anymore, nothing. And now a new bill presumably because we have a new administration (TARP was Bush, and therefore failed), and it's another 800 billion. What about TARP? Sold to us in the same way: huge spending necessary to avert disaster. Months later we can't even remember what happened to the money, or why it was approved.
In the meantime our debt grows to proportions never seen before, and our elected officials play these games with the public. Why not, the public has a short memory...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
