Being a blog entry in which the use/mention distinction almost, but not quite, solves one of the world's problems

Even though he's wrong, wrong, wrong about the grad strike at NYU, David Velleman is a pretty good philosopher, so I eagerly clicked through when Jim Hamilton sent me a link to Velleman's analysis of the Muhammed cartoon rowdydow. You should too.

There's a lot there that's worth reading, but what really piqued my philosonerdical interist was this:

Indeed, there is some reason to doubt whether they would still qualify as images of Muhammad. After all, the cartoons are "of" Muhammad, not by virtue of looking like him, but only by virtue of the artists' assertion as to their subject, and that assertion would be merely quoted when the cartoons were reprinted. That is, they would be presented as images claimed by the artist to depict Muhammad, with no endorsement of that claim. |Left2Right: freedom and offense|

Let's be clear on the claim. Velleman is arguing that the Danish cartoons, when reprinted, needn't constitute blasphemy so long as the reprinter is careful not to endorse the artists' assertion that the cartoons really are images of Muhammed.

This seemed plausible to me at first blush, but upon further reflection I've changed my mind. From the point of view of the argument, the crucial point to notice is that whether the reprinted images are, in fact, images of Muhammed turns not on whether the reprinter endorses the claim that they are but, instead, on whether the claim is true. So the important question becomes, did the original cartoons succeed in securing reference? It seems obvious that they did, even though, as Velleman notes, this was done in the absence of resemblence between the images and their subject.

US propaganda and death squads flourish

Art by stuartp.

The Law Librarian Blog is covering the release of the Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap which makes clear that propaganda intended for audiences abroad is increasingly being consumed by domestic news agencies in our networked world.

This makes the distinction between domestic news and foreign propaganda difficult at best and perhaps totally meaningless. I think we are forced to consider that our government lies to citizens as routinely as it lies to foreign powers.

Sami Ramadani links this policy of deception up with refusal by the media to investigate the official claims of the US and UK governments and asserts that the government has even admitted to running death squads in Iraq, but the media fails to investigate this possibility.

George Bush and Tony Blair are still dipping into the trough of deception and disinformation that launched the war: hailing non-existent progress, declaring sanctimonious satisfaction with sectarian elections and holding out the mirage of early withdrawal. In reality, the occupation and divide-and-rule tactics have spawned death squads, torture, kidnappings, chemical attacks, polluted water, depleted uranium, bombardment of civilians, probably more than 100,000 people dead and a relentless deterioration in Iraqis' daily lives...

Many Iraqis have persistently accused US-led forces of "controlling" an assortment of death squads or private militias and "turning a blind eye" to many terrorist attacks. Almost every week, handcuffed and blindfolded men are found lying next to one another, each killed by a single bullet to the head. Who is methodically torturing and killing these people? Who has so far assassinated more than 200 academics and scientists? Iraqis not linked to the Green Zone regime are convinced that US forces and US-backed mercenaries are involved.

Support for some Iraqi claims, however, comes from unexpected sources: two US generals have admitted the presence of targeted killing squads, and last February the Wall Street Journal let slip the presence of six US-trained secret militias. In the same month, Lt General William Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence, told the New York Times: "I think we're doing what the Phoenix programme was designed to do, without all the secrecy." US death squads assassinated about 40,000 people in Vietnam before Congress halted "Operation Phoenix".|Guardian|

I'm not saying Ramadani is correct. But it's at least provocative and should be investigated. It's hard to know what to believe when your own government is caught repeatedly in lying to the public, the United Nations, and the media.

And there is significant evidence that the Fourth Estate has been muzzled by its corporate masters and co-opted through being embedded with the military.

More sound, lots more fury

"(My company) was acquired by a business intelligence company funded by the CIA venture capital outfit. Apparently the stuff I invented is now in the hands of a couple of intelligence agencies, including Homeland Security.

"I'll tell you what I think the most troubling thing about all this is. It's easy to see whatever pattern you're looking for. It's like curve fitting in the stock market -- looks beautiful historically and maybe even in the short run, but it's a disaster in the making. So we have these guys running the country who saw a non-existent pattern in Iraq that justified a war ... and now we're going to give them software that will make it easy to create the illusion of patterns of conspiracy.

"Your friend from the NSA was right, but it's worse than he suggests. It's not just that social network analysis casts a wide net. It's that without oversight by people who really grasp the mathematics and have some distance from the whole thing, they're going to see patterns where there aren't any.

"They have a history of that."

link

The thing about Puppy Bowl

So, I caught a few minutes of the second annual Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet on Sunday. (Dear lord, I hope those were roman numerals I saw, and that this wasn't the 11th annual Puppy Bowl!)

I can't fault Animal Planet for putting this on. They have to put something on against the Superbowl, but whatever they do put on is only going to attract about six viewers per million. So what's an animal-based channel to do? Basically, they punt, and show puppies playing around. Cute. Boring. Calculated to spend the bare minimum on production costs while still getting those six viewers per million who are desperate for some animal-themed programming.

From the Animal Planet site:

Animal Planet has plays, tackles and fumbles too, only ours are much cuter! Viewers can spend the day (or maybe some time between the big plays) with a "stadium" full of man's best and cutest friends—puppies! In the midst of the official pigskin, iron match, it's the family-friendly, feel-good Animal Planet Puppy Bowl

Did I mention boring? Boy was it boring. Five minutes was enough to make me leave the room. Is it a good idea to put a camera under the transparent bottom of the puppies' water bowl? No. Is it a good idea to run a full minute of a puppy drinking water from this view? Hell no. But it's mind-blowing boringnicity is not the thing about Puppy Bowl.

The thing about Puppy Bowl is the commercialism. O Puppy Bowl, why did you have to sell out? Did you really need sponsors? Did you really need to have product placement? And to the sponsors: Volvo, did you get some sort of tax break for paying for a banner at that, um, stadium? Bissel, does having your Spot Bot carried out by the zombie referee to clean up alleged puppy tinkle actually help your bottom line? Common decency dictates that your commercial be wrapped in something that vaguely resembles entertainment.

UPDATE: I was not aware that the half-time show featured a bunch of kittens playing around. Now that is entertainment!

UPDATE II: Holy crap, I wonder how many DVDs of Puppy Bowl they sell.

Extra-Constitutional Inherent Powers

Self Evident Truths by Tolka Rover.

In case you were at work today and didn't have a chance to listen to Attorney General Gonzales' testimony, you can find coverage and a transcript at the Washingon Post (Reg'n Req'd).

For a more philosophical and rhetorical analysis, Orin Kerr makes an interesting point at the Volokh Conspiracy when he writes:

Gonzales [is] mixing up two different kinds of claims concerning "inherent authority" to conduct surveillance. The first kind of inherent authority is inherent in the sense that Congress does not need to create it for it to exist; the power exists even before Congress grants it.

The second kind of inherent authority is inherent in the sense that Congress cannot extinguish it; the power exists even after Congress tries to take it away.

It is true that there are a number of past precedents on the first type of inherent authority, but there is very little on the second type. My understanding is that Gonzales is using "inherent authority" in the second sense, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to cite precedents on the first type of inherent authority to support a claim of the second type of inherent authority. |VC|(emphasis added)

This post has created a great deal of discussion over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Some feel that the distinction is specious while others feel there is little authority for either type of inherent power.

The comment that I found to be most insightful was by Lee Kovarsky, who points out yet a third way in which inherent authority seems to be used by the Bush Administration.

[A] third way in which the term inherent authority has been used over the last couple of weeks - to refer to something almost extra-constitutional, that exists in the presidents authority as commander in chief (which of course happens to flow from the constitution, but never mind consistency), which would allow him to do things that would otherwise be unconstitutional. |VC cmt|

The rest of the thread seems to turn into flame war between law professors and a DOJ employee...but I think the question of inherent power and its wellspring in the Constitution is something the U.S. Supreme Court will soon be asked to decide.

And that will be the first of many occasions when we will rue that Bush has installed two arch-conservative white men on the Court.

Monday ignorance blogging

One of Ann Arbor's quaint features, apparently, is that local atmospheric conditions cause radio station frequencies to cycle every half hour or so. Or maybe it's the unconventional geometry of my apartment. Either way, listening to NPR has become a bit of a chore since the radio will, without warning, spontaneously begin to transmit college pop, sports talk, or static.

Throw in the fact that I still don't have regular access to the internet and that certain money grubbing bastards decided to turn off my free cable, and the end result is that I have very little idea what's going on in the world.

I hear that there are riots in Denmark. A sign, I believe, was set on fire. And a couple of people died. All of this has something to do with those cartoons.

Here's what I can't figure out. Are the rioters mad about the institution of free speech as such, or is there some more specific governmental act that they object to? Or, is this one of those feather/broken back type situations?

I ask because while I think that the rioters have any number of legitimate complaints, when it comes down to brass tacks I'm going to choose expressive freedom over cultural sensitivity.

Anyway, to legitimize this as a blog post, here's something dumb:

Christ is fair game, isn’t he? Unbelievers, liberals, and other secularists make fun of him, mock him, scorn him, and curse him, yet they steer clear of doing the same with Muslims’ god. They know offended Muslims, unlike offended Christians, issue death threats.

Crash and burn, Islamofascists! It’s in your nature. Killing is all you know how to do. You are gutless and psychotic. A religion of peace, indeed. |La Shawn Barber|

Might I suggest that Christians don't pour out into the streets and riot because the streets are, you know, theirs? A religion of the meek, indeed.

O the hypocrisy

It now emerges that the same editor who started the firestorm of protest against the cartoons of Mohammed turned down cartoons three years ago that made fun of the resurrection of Jesus because they might offend some readers.

Four more memes! For more memes!

Wow, not only has Eric shown signs of life, he broke his long silence to send me my very first blog tag! Technically, he tagged the whole group of us, but I'm going to pretend like it was just me.

Four jobs I've had:

1. Bookstore clerk. Yes, at the same place as John and Eric. I had almost forgotten.
2. Game reviewer (although, technically, I was never paid in monies)
3. English professer. That's where I learned how to spell.
4. Trading-card manufacturer

Four films I can watch repeatedly:

1. Miller's Crossing
2. Dr. Strangelove
3. Any good nature flick, like Microcosm
4. My own, yet to be filmed, masterwork

Four places I've lived

1. Manhattan, KS (truly it fills me with Manhappiness)
2. Setauket, NY (did I spell that right?)
3. Florence, Italy (well, for a few weeks, but it sure sounds cosmopolitan, non?)
4. Austin, TX -- Bat City, baby!

Four TV programs I like to watch:

I am so not answering this honestly, but here goes:

1. Rollergirls, cause occasionally we catch a glimpse of my wife's hair or elbow
2. The WIre, which may be the best show ever
3. The Daily Show
4. The Soup, so I can stay abreast of how awful television is while not actually watching much of it

Four places I've been on vacation

1. The Texas hill country for our mini-moon
2. Russia, which was terrifying
3. Austin, TX, before I ever thought I'd live here
4. Flathead lake, which was beautiful and relaxing

Four of my favorite dishes:

1. I'll copy Eric and go with "curry"
2. Sushi, especially good hamachi, anago, and unagi
3. Chicken piccata, when I'm eating meat
4. Ice cream is delicious

Four websites I visit daily

1. The daily soy, although I had despaired of any updates
2. Scarygoround
3 - 27. Ah, heck, I literally have 27 daily reads. Let's just say I've read it and move on.

Four places I would rather be right now:

1. Flathead lake in the summer
2. The Barbican Theater in London, watching a good Shakespeare production
3. Someplace without internet access for, like, a few weeks, so I can get some writing done and not do any work for my corporate overlord
4. In my swanky, yet to be purchased, blimp

Four bloggers I am annoying

Like I said, I don't even know how these tag things work. I'll let Zwichenzug tag folks on behalf of the Bellmen.

Four places I've never been but would like to visit

1. Thailand
2. San Francisco and other nice bits of California
3. My own, as yet undiscovered, island
4. The forbidden planet

Four differences in my alternate universe

1. Two words: jet boots
2. I have an oscar, a blimp, an island, and a spaceship or teleport widget for getting to the forbidden planet
3. People can't hurt each other without getting permission from their cats
4.Cats still can't speak and certainly wouldn't give their permission anyway

Stupid cats!

Truly a liberal media

WASHINGTON -- A day after his loss in the race for House majority leader, Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt said Friday that media calls for a new face in the party's leadership rather than a desire by Republicans for change drove the outcome.

Blunt made it even more clear when he added, "We will continue to use illegal means to advance our personal power agendas and to shut out legitimate criticism from the process. Sure, a few of us will go to jail, but you know what? I'm not hearing and real calls for change from the Republican caucus. And what's more, I think the voters understand and respect that. It's only a few in the media calling for 'change.'"

UPDATE: I screwed up and forgot the link ot the AP article from which that quoted text comes. Here's Jim Leher using the same phrase.

Friday dumb game blogging, busy busy busy edition

Safety Neal sent me a link to this game, but I haven't had time to play it.

• fastr

Muslim law on depicting Allah & prophets

The BBC has a piece giving some background on the Muslim prohibition on representing Allah, Mohammed & the prophets.

Oh, and bizkit has posted a set of Jyllands-Posten Muslim Cartoons on Flickr.

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out

Bore Me has a fantastic little clip where they interview Americans about who we should invade next.

Thanks to Jim Hamilton (my favorite philosopher) for the link.

I think this illustrates why an educated populace is an essential ingredient for a functioning democracy.

No water well in sight

Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women’s latrine after dark. |AlterNet|

(Via Feministe)

Let's start with an obvious reason not to believe these accusations. Janis Karpinski was hung out to dry when the Abu Ghraib story broke. She's someone who has an axe to grind, and so isn't the most objective source imaginable.

That said, I find these allegations entirely believable. And, I mean, that's just my gut reaction. A story surfaces claiming that women are taking extreme precautions in order to avoid rape and I think, "Yep, that's pretty much the way the world is."

But I know perfectly well that lots of people, especially people who sport the same brand of dangly genitals that I do, don't have that reaction, and I wonder why. Is it just that, as luck would have it, none of the women those men know have been sexually assaulted? Or is it that the story wasn't told? Or wasn't believed?

Or is it -- and this is the theory that strikes me as most plausible -- that the assaults happened, that the stories were told and believed, but that the next intellectual step wasn't made? I'm talking about the step that moves from the concrete horror of the individual act to the realization that the problem here is systemic and has to do with the fact that our society's mating rituals begin with and require male sexual aggression.

Is that it?

Videogame movies are "teh suck"

What is it with Uwe Boll? For those unfamiliar with the name, Boll makes movies based on video games. The problem is, the movies really suck.

Actually, that's not the real problem with Boll. The problem with Boll is that gamers know who he is, and they know in advance that his movies will suck. Movie producers make videogame titles because they believe they have a small but built-in audience of gamers that will show up and provide enough revenue to squeeze a sliver of profit out of their low-budget crap-fests. Since gamers have gotten wind of Boll's fantastic crapulence, however, this scheme stops working. How, then, does this guy still have a job?

(For the record, one of the writers at Kotaku believes that Boll is really, really trying to make good movies because he really loves videogames. I haven't seen a single one of Boll's films, so, heck, maybe he's right.)

IMPORTANT blogging

Item: In Michigan, pad thai is sweet rather than spicy. It oughta be spicy.

Item: eripsa and Dru have new digs.

Item: One of the great things about wandering through the halls of academic buildings is that every now and then you'll come across a box of free books. Today I picked up a copy of The Bronte Sisters Quiz and Puzzle Book by Maggie Lane. It has got to be seen to be believed.

Item: In Gran Turismo 3 it takes 13 clicks to restart a race if you spin out in the first corner. You also have to sit through two delays while the system loads game data.

Muslims await apology

The Kaa'ba - Makkah (Mecca)
Originally uploaded by 7abo0ob el Emarat.

As we reported earlier, Muslims around the world have been horrified by political cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed which were published in a Danish newspaper. Personification (and satire) of the phrophet Mohammed is considered blasphemy by at least some (if not all) portions of the Muslim community.

Well, the blasphemy is spreading around Europe.

Two leading German newspapers and one of France 's biggest dailies today reprinted the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have sparked furore across the Middle East.

The 12 drawings were first printed in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September, sparking protests by Muslims against Denmark in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries in the region.|Guardian|

But it does not appear that any apology is forthcoming. Quite the contrary...

Die Welt printed on its front page today the drawing of the prophet wearing a turban with a bomb about to explode.

"Democracy is the institutionalised form of freedom of expression. There is no right to protection from satire in the west; there is a right to blasphemy" the paper said in an accompanying comment piece.|Guardian|

Someone owes someone an apology

There was another benefit to the “Gang of 14” deal that I didn’t anticipate. By making conservatism itself not a disqualifying condition and giving some degree of Democratic acquiescence, the deal gave pro-choice Republicans more political cover to support clearly pro-life nominees. In Alito’s case, that proved important in getting the votes for his confirmation. Only one pro-choice Republican ended up voting against him.

In reality, McCain’s compromise provided a smoother and surer route to the confirmation of conservative judges than the showdown his critics preferred. A more conservative judiciary may well prove to be the most important conservative accomplishment in the post-Reagan era. President Bush deserves the lion’s share of the credit, since he’s the one making the nominations. But McCain’s much disparaged deal paved the way.

Conservatives owe him an apology.

| Rob Robb of the AZ Republic |

Sure seems like he's right. That also means, I suppose, that liberal bloggers were right (again): The Democrats in the Gang of 14 owe liberals an apology. I won't hold my breath. I can only hope that Harry Reid can leave a horse's head in a few of the Gang's beds before the next filibuster battle.