Someday, I will own a non-empty subset of the following set of pets:I find these fun.
- Orange tropical fish named The Pirate King
- Black ferret named Ko-Ko
- White mouse named Pitti-Sing
- White mouse named Peep-Bo
- White mouse named Yum-Yum
- A Gila Monster named The Mikado
- A yellow finch named Phyllis
- A cat named Phoebe
- A hamster named Marco
- A hamster named Giuseppe
- A racoon named Dr. Daly
A golden retriever named Hilarion
- A golden retriever named Cyril
- A golden retriever named Florian
- A very large white cat named The Fairy Queen
- A very large black cat named Dame Carruthers
- One of those droopy-faced grumpy-looking dogs named Gama
- A boa constrictor named Katisha
- A peacock named Bunthorne
I take the inference to be, they are trying to kill you, therefore you're not paranoid for thinking so. The Dilbert position amounts to a kind of paranoia-externalism -- whether you're paranoid depends in part upon external factors. The common-sense idea, which underwrites the old joke above, is that paranoia is merely a mental state. I think that in this case, common sense is right and Dilbert is wrong.
In 1880 Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov that "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible." The history of his native Russia, wracked by the atrocities of atheistic communism for most of the 20th century, serves as a most graphic example of the truth of his conclusion.The history of Russia proves that if God does not exist, then everything is permissible? What? Did historical Russia demonstrate the truth of each clause? Russia proved that there is no God, and that everything is permissible? Or maybe historical Russia proved that there is a God, thus making the conditional trivally true, because of it's false hypothesis. But if historical Russia did actually prove that there is a God, he might better advance his cause by showing us that proof. He goes on to offer one more argument for his thesis that America is better off with religion (honest, I'm not clipping anything relevant out of these arguments):
Nazism, above all detested religion because it called for allegiance to something greater than the state, namely God.So, yeah. We're different from the Nazis. U-S-A! U-S-A!
You were designed to make sure that attorneys in federal cases make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. You were a real hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal creativity from federal proceedings and embarassed well-meaning but overzealous attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when you began allowing plaintiffs to make allegations in their complaints that are likely to have evidenciary support after discovery, and when you allowed a 21 day period for the erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion. Sure, you keep everything running on the up and up, but it's clear that things would be a lot more fun without you around. Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?Thanks to Jones McClure Publishing for making "FRCP" a household term (subjective to me).
brought to you by Quizilla
I know that you ate pizza and what your favorite kind of pizza ismakes perfect sense, while
I ran the 100-meter dash and for governordoes not. I have two things to say about this. Thing to say about this #1. Is this a definitive test? Maybe it's just prima facia evidence... I'm thinking about knowing a person, which I'm pretty sure Schaffer thinks is a different kind of knowing. I don't think it'd be all that weird to say
I know your mother and what she looks like.Do you share my intuition? Thing to say about this #2. I think English would be a really cool language if we were able to apply homophones over conjunctions. I have some control over my concepts, right? I think I'm going to go ahead and try to acquire some disjunctive concepts. I encourage you to do the same. So I do want to be able to say things like "After dinner, I ate a date, then went on another with a med student" and "my boss fired my partner and up the grill." And I don't want to just be able to come up with these by being clever -- I want my mind to actually instantiate concepts like "planned romantic meeting or fruit from a palm tree". I that if we actually spoke and thought like this, the world would be better for two reasons:
I am certain that I think. Anything that thinks must exist. Therefore I can be certain that I exist.Broughton thinks that Descartes is employing a different argument to reach certainty of his own existence -- one which does not depend on a prior certainty. Here is the argument:
1. The only way I could doubt that I exist is to invoke a skeptical scenario. 2. The invocation of any skeptical scenario implies my existence. 3. Therefore, all skeptical scenarios about my existence are incoherent. 4. Therefore, I cannot entertain rational doubt about "I exist". 5. Therefore, I can be absolutely certain that "I exist" is true.I'm sure that something about this argument makes me uncomfortable, but I'm not sure what it is exactly. It definitely has to do with the "certainty" status magically appearing in (5). Is (5) really a valid inference from (4)? It seems plausible that (5) could be a valid inference from "There is no rational grounds for doubt that I exist". But (4) just says that I can't entertain any. Isn't there too much psychology here for the inference to go through? Maybe there are possible grounds which I'm psychologically unable to entertain? I'm just thinking this through for the first time, so any suggestions/pointers/criticisms/confirmations would be appreciated.
No bank would be allowed to withdraw money from a depositor's account based on the sort of rough name matches and loose procedures used in voter purges. The right to vote should be treated with the same respect as a bank deposit, and guarded as carefully.Unless I'm even more confused than I think I am, there are three problems with this analogy:
No bank would be allowed to withdraw money from a depositor's account based on the sort of rough name matches and loose procedures used in voter purges. The right to vote should be treated with the same respect as a bank withdrawal, and guarded as carefully.I guess I'll go ahead and tentatively assume that's what they meant. Still, it's a pretty obvious and weird kind of mistake to show up in something like the New York Times. Am I making some kind of mistake in my analysis?
The Bush administration has decided that people with bad hearing have bad judgment, too, and need special guidance from the federal government. So the U.S. Department of Education is declaring about 200 television programs inappropriate for closed-captioning and denying federal grant requests to make them accessible to the hearing-impaired. The department made its decisions based on the recommendations of a five-member panel. Who the five members are, only the government seems to know, and it isn't saying. But the shows they censored suggest a perspective that is Talibanesque. The government is refusing to caption Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, apparently fearing that the deaf would fall prey to witchcraft if they viewed the classic sitcoms. Your government also believes that Law & Order is too intense for the hard-of-hearing. So is Power Rangers. You can rest easy knowing that your federal tax dollars aren't being spent to promote Sanford and Son, Judge Wapner's Animal Court and The Loretta Young Show within the deaf community. Kids with hearing problems can forget about watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, classic cartoons or Nickelodeon features. Even Roy Rogers and Robin Hood are out. Sports programming took a heavy hit, too. The government has decided that people with hearing problems don't need to watch NASCAR, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League or Professional Golf Association tournaments. ... The Department of Education is refusing to reveal the names of the panel members whose opinions determined the caption grants and also won't disclose the new guidelines. By every appearance, the government has changed its definition of what constitutes a caption-worthy program. But it's keeping the new rules secret. "They apparently used a panel of five individuals and then made the censorship decisions based on the individuals' recommendations," Mr. Brick says. "We have found the identity of one of the panelists. This individual tells us that he never knew he was on such a panel and that his views would be used for censorship. No panel was convened. The five panelists were contacted individually and separately."I have a hard time taking this at face value. I mean, I'm as anti-Bush administration as the next academic, but this is ridiculous. Please tell me I'm missing a piece of the story.
It follows, then, a maiden who Devotes herself to loving you Is prompted by no selfish view.This, of course, is simply false. Just because loving Bunthorne wouldn't be pleasant for Patience, it doesn't follow that to do so would be *selfless*. (Even if I *hate* torturing people, it wouldn't be selfless of me to torture you!) In point of fact, Patience is fully aware that every maiden in the village is in love with Bunthorne, and that by marrying him, she'd be disappointing everyone else. In that sense, it is the most selfish action she could possibly have chosen. She is placing her own (perceived) virtue above the consideration of those around her. Ironically, her perceived virtue is identified as selflessness. (It is as if she said, "I will be selfless, even though that will make everyone around me miserable.") There are two ways that we can interpret this. One is as a mere conceptual confusion. This is entirely valid and reasonable -- As a rule, Gilbert & Sullivan sopranos are rarely confused of being particularly intelligent. But I think there are textual clues that cast Patience is a morally worse light. Consider the line in which she determines that love is a duty:
It's perfectly dreadful to think of the appalling state I must be in! I had no idea that love was a duty. No wonder they all look so unhappy! Upon my word, I hardly like to associate with myself.The emphasis is on her new negative feelings about herself. This suggests to me that her new-found "virtue" is a kind of perverted self-punishment, designed merely to ease her conscience. Under this interpretation, Patience isn't *trying* to be selfless at all -- she's trying to martyr herself in order to make herself feel better. (Under her view, self-punishment, mislabeled as "selflessness", is only a means to this end.) This bears on another controversial point in Kantian ethics -- the idea that good will is the only relevant consideration in the evaluation of moral action. This does seem to generate counterintuitive consequences in cases like Patience's, in which she is in one sense acting out of duty, but in another, out of selfish motivation. I think this is related to Savannah's point about the relevance of the sources of our moral beliefs.
DENTON - Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said Wednesday. ... Herr said he declined to fill the prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape victim, he said. "I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor at Denton Bible Church and asked him what he thought about it." ... Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons. Herr said he did not know about that policy until his supervisors questioned him about it shortly before he was fired.Gee, he didn't know that he doesn't get to decide who does and does not get their prescriptions filled? Savannah said it right:
cjbrownefan: That's pretty bizarre. cjbrownefan: *sigh* When did the world go mad? Muppet Horde: Long, long ago, I'm afraid. cjbrownefan: Shouldn't it be over it by now, or something? Muppet Horde: What, the world, or the madness? cjbrownefan: The world should be over the madness. Muppet Horde: Agreed. Let's you and me have a revolution, and run the world, and not be mad.
Taxation has been abolished, the government has been privatized, and employees take the surname of the company they work for. It's a brave new corporate world, but you don't want to be caught without a platinum credit card--as lowly Merchandising Officer Hack Nike is about to find out. Trapped into building street cred for a new line of $2500 sneakers by shooting customers, Hack attracts the barcode-tattooed eye of the legendary Jennifer Government. A stressed-out single mom, corporate watchdog, and government agent who has to rustle up funding before she's allowed to fight crime, Jennifer Government is holding a closing down sale--and everything must go. A wickedly satirical and outrageous thriller about globalization and marketing hype, Jennifer Government is the best novel in the world ever.I almost bought it, but didn't. It does sound good, though. If the description was accurate, then it's probably very, very good. (2) I auditioned this evening for a student-written Brown musical entitled The Best Brown Musical Ever: The Musical. It reminds me a very good deal of Pre-Med: The Musical, the student musical I was involved in my freshman year at Rice.
A drive is under way in California to have the state government provide a Bible to every public elementary school student in the state and suggest that schools use the books as texts for the study of literature.Disappointingly, the Chronicle story is somewhat ambiguous as to what exactly is being considered. Is the suggestion that study of the Bible merely become part of the curriculum, with Bibles being "provided" the same way that math books are? Or are they buying new Bibles every year and sending them home with kids? For the record, I think there are good reasons to study the Bible, and don't have an objection to its study in public schools. But if they're giving students Bibles, that's elevating it to a special status with the pretty apparent motive of spreading Christianity. I'm going to go ahead and guess that's not what's at stake, and suggest that the Houston Chronicle ought to have been clearer on the issue.
Vote your passion on this sham NewsMax Poll. Man, Newsmax is fair and balanced! Check out this "question": "Should Mel Gibson have portrayed Jesus' death so accurately?" I wonder what questions they might have considered but decided not to include? Here are some possibilities: "Do you think Jews [besides Noam Chomsky, natch] will ever admit that anti-Semitism doesn't exist?" "Do you think Jesus has forgiven Bill Clinton for killing Vince Foster?" "Is there any limit to what liberals will do to undermine President Bush's righteous war against terror?" "Should Rush Limbaugh be telling so much truth so often?"
The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.Inevitably, findings like this prompt arguments of one or the other of the following forms: (1) "if animals do it, it must be natural, therefore it's good for humans to do it," and (2) "if animals do it, it's subhuman, so it's bad for humans to do it." I honestly have no idea where the idea that "naturalness" has anything at all to do with morality came from. The Times is to be commended for actually getting that issue right here:
Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes." ... What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think." "You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate." In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction." "Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."Also, they should be commended for including a picture of gay penguins.
DES MOINES, Iowa In what may be the first subpoena of its kind since the Communist-hunting days of the 1950s, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists. In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said. Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas, served by a local sheriff's deputy who works on the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum. ... Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002. They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent. "This is exactly what people feared would happen," said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. "The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on." ... Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, said he had not heard of any similar case of a U.S. university being subpoenaed for such records. He said the case brings back fears of the "red squads" of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters. According to a copy obtained by The Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, "all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting." It also asks for campus security records "reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting." Several officials of Drake, a private university with about 5,000 students, refused to comment. A source with knowledge of the investigation said a judge had issued a gag order forbidding them from discussing the subpoena.
Their cheeks have not that pulpy softness which One gets so weary of in womankindIt was suggested that this line represents an inconsistency on behalf of Gilbert, the author: "Logically, she could not have grown weary of women's faces unless she knew that an alternative existed. You don't grow weary of things when--as far as you've ever known in your life--there is no other way." I don't think that I accept this principle. I posted:
I don't think I agree with this principle at all. Frankly, I've grown weary of the fact that it takes energy and effort to build friendships. I've never seen a friendship just magically appear, but I think it'd be cool if one did, because *I'm weary of the way it always works*. Or consider the "Belle Principle", taken from my favorite Disney Cartoon, Beauty & the Beast. Belle has lived in her small villiage since birth, and doesn't seem to have travelled. Nevertheless, she manages to "want much more than this provincial life". I see no contradiction at all in Melissa's having grown weary of women's faces, even if she's never seen a man's face.It was justly pointed out to me that I was merely citing another fictional example in the Belle case -- but does anyone seriously think that Beauty & the Beast is psychologicaly unrealistic on the basis of Belle being weary of a town she's never left?
"As a direct and proximate result of the broadcast of the acts, (Carlin) and millions of others saw the acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury," the lawsuit filed by Knoxville attorney Wayne A. Ritchie II states.According to that reasoning, the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri might be entitled to a class action lawsuit against Fox Networks. After all, as a direct and proximate cause of a Fox broadcast, Rams fans everywhere were presumably caused to suffer outrange, anger, and embarassment. And if watching one's "team" pathetically lose a divisional playoff game at home isn't serious injury, I don't know what is. (Also: Maybe Kurt Warner should sue himself for causing embarassment. Like, several times.) As someone once said, "there was no part of that that wasn't fun."
Terri Carlin filed her lawsuit "on behalf of all Americans who watched the halftime show" in federal court in Knoxville. ... Carlin, who works at a Knoxville bank, said the exposure and "sexually explicit conduct" by other performers during the show injured viewers. "As a direct and proximate result of the broadcast of the acts, (Carlin) and millions of others saw the acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury," the lawsuit filed by Knoxville attorney Wayne A. Ritchie II states. It doesn't specify the type of serious injury.I love this country. Here's a confusing bit:
"All of the defendants knew that the Super Bowl, the pre-eminent sports event in the United States, would be watched by millions of families and children," Ritchie wrote. "Nevertheless, (they) included in the halftime show sexually explicit acts solely designed to garner publicity and, ultimately, to increase profits for themselves."Is it just me, or is that entirely not the right thing to be complaining about at all? It's not like the lawsuit is charging CBS et al with capitalism -- of course they wanted to increase profits. They're supposed to make a case that they've wrongfully damaged us. And of course there's this part:
Because the game is broadcast worldwide, Ritchie also wrote that the actions harmed the "standing and credibility" of Americans throughout the world.I'm no expert on the non-American world, but my impression is that in most non-United States places around the world, a breast on TV is even less of a big deal than it is here. I find it very likely that this silly lawsuit does more to harm the international standing and credibility of the American people around the world than Janet's breast. I'm curious how sincere this is. I wonder if she's genuinely offended, or whether it's more about
Carlin's lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages worth billions.Money's fun. Suppose, hypothetically, that this class action lawsuit went to trial and was won. Would I get a cut of it? I'd like to amend this blog post by replacing every sentence in which I make clear my personal attitude toward the viewing of Janet Jackson's right breast with its negation.
Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and calm reflection are ... good for all sorts of purposes ... but they lack much that would be required to declare them good without limitation (however unconditionally they were praised by the ancients); for, without the basic principles of a good will they can become extremely evil, and the coolness of a scoundrel makes him not only far more dangerous but also immediately more abominable in our eyes that we would have taken him to be without it. 4:394I rarely find myself in sympathy with the virtue ethicist, but I think Kant may be treating the position unfairly here. It seems to me that coolness (I mean that as a technical term, including moderation, self-control, reflection, intelligence, etc.) is a virtue, even in an evil person. Maybe one reason Kant got this one wrong is that he didn't have movies. Today, contemporary thinkers get to see lots of examples of cool evil people. Consider Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal is a good example because he's both extremely evil and extremely cool. Remember his brilliantly holding on to a hidden pen spring, leading up to his brilliant escape from his cell, his brutal murder of a guard, and his brilliant escape from his prison? (If you don't, just take my word for it -- he's both evil and brilliant.) If Kant's right, then Hannibal's coolness should be a vice -- it should make him appear "immediately more abominable", independent of the fact that it makes him more dangerous. To determine whether he's right, compare Hannibal with two new fictional characters I'm about to invent. First, consider Hannidull. Hannidull, just like Hannibal, is an evil psychopath. In fact, his will is evil to exactly the same extent -- he has identical murderous inclinations, and he decides to act on them exactly as often. However, unlike Hannibal, Hannidull is not cool. He's not a genius -- in fact, he's a little slow. We're not as worried about Hannidull as we are about Hannibal, because Kant's right about Hannidull being far less dangerous. But Kant makes two claims: "...the coolness of a scoundrel makes him (1) not only far more dangerous but also (2) immediately more abominable..." So yes, he's right about (1). But what about (2)? To run this comparison, we need to hold dangerousness constant. So consider Hannidull+. Hannidull+, internally, is just like Hannidull: he's evil and dull, to exactly the same extent. But Hannidull+, unlike both Hannidull and Hannibal, is very physically powerful. He's so powerful, that he's just as difficult to capture as the cool Hannibal, and just as likely, once captured, to escape. In short, his power compensates for his lack of coolness (in terms of dangerousness). So Hannidull+ is exactly as dangerous as Hannibal. If Kant is right, we should judge Hannibal to be "more abominable" than Hannidull+, because he's "cooler". But that's not my intuition, and I'm guessing it's not the most common one, either. Once we hold dangerousness constant, Hannibal is more praiseworthy than Hannidull+, precisely because he's cooler. Hannibal is a better person than Hannidull+ (it's too bad about that evil psychopath thing, though). That is to say, coolness seems to be praiseworthy, even in evil people.
A: Shopkeeper A is motivated solely by making money. He reasons that if he treats his customers fairly and is nice to them, they'll become repeat customers, recommend friends, etc. So he treats them fairly and is nice to them. B: Shopkeeper B just gets a kick out of making people happy. It makes him feel good to make other people feel good, so he treats his customers fairly and is nice to them. C: Shopkeeper C hates people. Also, he likes money, and is constantly tempted to cheat his customers. And maybe to kick them, too, because he'd like it if they experienced pain. But he knows that this would be morally wrong. So he treats his customers fairly and is nice to them, because it's his duty.I take it everyone will agree that A is less good than either B or C. But which of B and C is better?
Descartes is sitting at a bar. The bartender asks him if he wants another drink. "I think not," says Descartes. Suddenly, Descartes disappears.And remember also, the reason that the joke was horrible: Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am," but he didn't say, nor does it follow, nor is it true, that "I do not think, therefore I am not" would be a valid inference. But I was reading Meditation Two today, and I do see that he did say the following:
I am; I exist -- this is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking; for perhaps it could also come to pass that if I were to cease all thinking I would then utterly cease to exist. At this time I admit nothing that is not necessarily true. Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation Two, 27In light of this passage, I feel that I ought to add one more to my list of more-acceptable Descartes-in-a-bar-joke alternatives: Descartes is sitting in a bar. He finishes his drink, and the bartender asks him if he'll have another. "I think not," says Descartes. Suddenly, Descartes disappears for all he knows. Ok, so the other ones are funnier.
Subject: The ad CBS will not air Dear friend, During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it. Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox, allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now the MoveOn.org ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech. Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected. We need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial" – especially if they're controversial simply because they take on the President – just isn't right. To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign the petition to CBS to run these ads, go to: http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/ MoveOn.org will deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters. Thanks.I hadn't heard about this bill. Sounds like something I want to know more about.
