April 12, 2007
News, Personal Essay -- It's All the Same Thing
Here's something mind-bogglingly stupid from yesterday's Slate. The piece, by one Jack Shafer, is about allegations that David Sedaris embellished his humorous essays:
Sedaris and company want to erect a penumbra that shields humorists from criticism when they blend fiction into their nonfiction but still insist on calling it nonfiction. The logic behind this is difficult to follow. If writing fiction is the license Sedaris and other nonfiction humorists need to get at "larger truths," why limit this exemption to humorists? Let reporters covering city hall, war, and business to embellish and exaggerate so they can capture "larger truths," too. I'm sure that Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Christopher Newton, and Slate's "monkeyfishing guy" would back this idea, especially if applied retroactively.
Is Shafer for real? Does he really think there's no difference between a humorist writing personal essays and "reporters covering city hall"? That is just a stunning lack of nuance. I am flabbergasted.
And, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled lack of blogging.
Posted by todd at 12:56 PM | Comments (0)
May 12, 2006
Unhinged
It's all well and good to joke about how terrifying Ann Coulter is. That is, until she goes and says something like "Why hasn't the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is?" Not only is it impossible to interpret that as a joke, but it leaves all of our own attempts at humor feeling a little hollow and sad. Well, all of them but this one.
Posted by todd at 12:58 PM | Comments (1)
March 8, 2006
Free Speech vs. Pain
Philosopher of Law Ronald Dworkin has a very nice short piece in the NYRB about the Danish cartoon debacle, The Right to Ridicule. It basically recaps about all the things smart people have said about this episode, but in a concise manner. For example, he leads off by noting that "Reprinting would very likely have meant—and could still mean—more people killed and more property destroyed." But he goes on to consider the risk that this "will be wrongly taken as an endorsement of the widely held opinion that freedom of speech has limits, that it must be balanced against the virtues of 'multiculturalism,'" and hails free speech as necessary for a democracy. If (like me) you were dismayed by this whole affair but remained unclear on what to think about it, Dworkin offers clear and forceful arguments for distinguishing why the international printing of the cartoons in solidarity was ridiculous, from why their printing should be defended in principle.
Posted by tony at 12:27 PM | Comments (0)
February 9, 2006
The Rottweiler Disappoints
I finally watched Richard Dawkins' The Root of All Evil? two nights ago.
I suppose my short review is, I was disappointed.
My first complaint was that, for a man known as Darwin's Rottweiler, he was far too nice. He interviewed several religious men, all of whom said one thing or another which was patently ridiculous, and he rarely forced the issue with anything like the stubborn ardor that one would expect from Dawkins. It often seemed to me that his opponents only looked silly because I took it for granted that "Because the Bible says so" is an invalid argument. If I had not sat down to watch the show with this mindset, I would have thought that, as often as not, Dawkins got the short end of his conversations with zealots.
This leads to me to my second complaint, which is that the presentation lacked a focused, structured message or organizing argument. PZ Myers said
I've also heard the show dismissed as "preaching to the converted"…which I think is roughly 180° misdirected. If I have any complaints, it is that I am not the audience for the show—what he said was nothing I haven't thought myself for years. The target audience is actually that great mass of people out there who have never heard a peep of that great body of secular criticism of religion. Seriously, most Americans can go through their lives hearing nothing but repetitive paeans of praise for the virtues of religious life; The Root of All Evil? is one of those too-rare attempts to reach out to the uninformed and explain the freethinker's argument against religion.
Well, sort of. It's true that Dawkins isn't preaching to the converted, but only because he isn't preaching to anyone at all. He does make a few good attempts to show some of the ridiculous aspects of religion. Some of these are effective. About the crucifiction of Christ, Dawkins asks, "If God wanted us to be forgiven, why not just forgive us? Who was He trying to impress?" There is also an account of the chilling story in Judges 19 (retold at that link with Legos). Other attempts, such as the interactions with zealots that I've already mentioned, are not effective, because Dawkins is content to hold civil conversations with near-lunatics. So, while it is an attempt to reach out to the religious in the world, it's a surprisingly poorly executed attempt.
I think a much more effective program could have been constructed where he spent less time speaking to me, and saying, "Gee aren't these religious crazies crazy," and more time speaking to the sane religious people and saying, "Look, here's what a rational, materialist approach to the world, founded in a scientific understanding thereof, is really all about."
Before you say, "Well, maybe he just wants them to see their own leaders as crazy," I just don't think he convinced anyone of that. They deal with these leaders in their everyday lives, and they obviously respect them. Such a result would have required a much more careful, thorough dismantling of their arguments than was actually presented.
There are two people in my life who believe seriously in God, and who I think are both 1) worth the work of and 2) capable of being saved. I was hoping that, once I was done watching the show, I would have found something in it to make it worth burning to DVD and sending to at least one of these people. I didn't find that. There simply weren't enough moments which I thought would make a religious person say, "Huh. I never thought of that..." to overcome the natural aversion that people have to attempts by their friends to change their minds.
Posted by todd at 9:00 AM | Comments (0)
December 4, 2005
A Holiday by any Other Name
(Disclaimer: This post probably deserves more time than I am going to give it, but I have dishes to do.)
I'm excited about one day having kids. I think it's going to be a hoot. I'm so excited that I spend time thinking about how I'll raise them. One issue that's concerned me for a while is: should my children celebrate Christmas?
A little more than a week ago, my second favorite living biologist posted about the supposed liberal war on Christmas. Myers joked,
In a few weeks, this atheist's war on Christmas will begin in earnest when I take the family out to the local tree farm, pick out a fine Christmas tree, take a sleigh ride, and drink hot apple cider in an old barn with a bunch of other anarchists. It will culminate with presents under the tree and a big dinner and happy phone calls to all the relatives scattered around the country. Thus will the moral rectitude of our nation be undermined.
This got me thinking.
Today, there's an editorial in the New York Times which provides more food for thought. Apparently (I don't keep up with these things) conservative pundits are all up in arms because, for example, Wal-Mart has a "Holiday" sale, rather than a "Christmas" promotion.
On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in just 18 states.Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the "Christmas shopping season."
Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out. A 1931 Times roundup of Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical of countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a "profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find" and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.
This year's Christmas "defenders" are not just tolerating commercialization - they're insisting on it.
This week the White House is lighting both a Christmas tree, and a "holiday tree." Some stores are apparently selling "holiday trees", as well. Are there any people who buy them, but don't celebrate Christmas?
My concern, as a future parent, is that I think Christmas is awesome. For the same reasons that PZ Myers does -- for the cider, and the tree, and the family. I think gift-giving is a lot of fun; I like to have to sit and think about each of my loved ones, and what would make each of them happiest.
However, I don't want my kids to recieve a mixed message about Christianity. They should understand that it's not OK for the majority of the country to assume that everyone shares their religion. I side with non-Christian parents who don't want their children to have a "Christmas pageant" or to make "Christmas cards" at school.
So, if my children ask why we observe this one of many Christian rituals, what am I supposed to say?
"Habit."?
"I want you to truly appreciate movies like A Christmas Story and Scrooged."?
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Is anyone else willing to start actively celebrating "the Holidays" with me? Anyone want to put a "holiday" tree in his or her house, and call it that? Anyone want to actively celebrate Santa Claus and Jingle Bells and warm drinks when it's snowing outside? Is it still ok to call it Christmas if we do, and should we even want to?
Update: Maybe we should be celebrating a holiday dedicated to Giblets.
Update 2: This is priceless. It took me a minute of staring to really get it. Way to go, Fox News. (From Keith.)
Posted by todd at 9:13 PM | Comments (3)
October 3, 2005
Cast Your Vote
Who are the top five public intellectuals in the world? Damned if I know, but the periodical Foreign Policy wants to find out. Or at least, they're running an internet poll on the question, The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals. They've thrown together a top 100 list of historians, political theorists, writers, scientists, and 10 (!) philosophers who they think make the cut, and are calling for votes on who makes the top 5.
While on the one hand I'm rather proud of the fact that I know maybe 50% of the people who made the list, it also marks the distressing fact that there are 50 or so people whose names I've never even heard. Even that rough 50% figure counts a lot of people I've just heard a reference to here or there, but know almost nothing substantive about who they are or what they do. Assuming the average reader is even moderately better informed than me (say, they've read a book or article by 50% of those on the list), it seems like this will come down to a popularity contest. Should I be voting for Dennett just because I've read his books and like them alot? This doesn't seem like a fair criterion to prefer him over, say, E.O. Wilson, who I hear great things about but haven't gotten a chance to read. The same goes for Jared Diamond, who I'd vote for in a second, except that Guns, Germs and Steel remains on my to-read list. And then there's people like Jeffrey Sachs (American economist) and Shintaro Ishihara (a "Politician" and author from Japan). Should they fail to make the cut simply because I have no idea who they are?
Not that FP is offering any advice, since they don't even recommend criteria for what makes someone a good "public intellectual". Seeing as it's left open to reader interpretation, everyone go and vote, and I guess just use whatever insights you have about the people on the list. We all know the Pope is going to win anyway.
Just one final note on the list: I'm happy to see Christopher Hitchens' occupation listed as "Polemicist". I find myself wondering "is that how he styles himself?" only momentarily, before I realize the answer is pretty obviously yes.
Posted by tony at 11:24 PM | Comments (13)
July 12, 2005
How Did It Take Four Years?
Yahoo news reports that Oliver Stone will "make the first major US film about September 11".
"It's a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and carries within a compassion that heals," Stone said in a statement issued by producers.A compassion that heals and Nic Cage!? I second the sentiment of my source (Sebastian at Obsidian Wings), who is "incredibly unthrilled".
Oscar-winning star [Nic] Cage will take the lead role of New York Port Authority policeman Sergeant John McLoughlin, who was trapped along with one of his fellow officers in the mangled wreckage of one of the twin towers that crumbled after being hit by hijacked passenger jets.
Posted by todd at 2:11 PM | Comments (8)
Reality TV in Iraq
There's an interesting story on the NPR website about reality TV in Iraq.
Apparently the shows are becoming huge in Iraq, but they often have "a social message". The shows rebuild demolished homes and attempt to overcome governmental corruption on behalf of individuals. One gives couples the wedding of their dreams on bomb-scarred streets, in what seems like a symbolic reclamation of the space.
Sounds a lot more meaningful than Trading Spouses.
Posted by todd at 9:48 AM | Comments (1)