Friday, August 30, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Romantic love is a minor form of folie à deux, a mutual delusional fantasy that often afflicts otherwise normal people.— V. S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011), p. 261.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Chicago Review Press recently issued a new version of the autobiography of Moe Howard of The Three Stooges, now with the title he originally wanted: I Stooged to Conquer. I read this on my Kindle, so I am not sure whether it has the same format as the old version, but all of the content appears to be there, including the many, many photos, plus a new forward by Moe's daughter.
Despite having read the original many years ago, I put aside pretty much everything else to read this reissue, and was thoroughly rewarded for having done so. Even though I remember most of the content from the original, I found myself just as absorbed as the first time through and still laughing out loud at many of the stories, where a hilarious turn often comes as suddenly and unexpectedly as a pie to the face or a poke to the eyes. Moe writes simply and engagingly, as though he is telling anecdotes to old and dear friends. His story is fascinating, often touching, and—of course—filled with laughs.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Be forewarned: this post contains a few mild spoilers about the movie Zero Dark Thirty.
I finally got around to watching Zero Dark Thirty, and am frankly confused by the criticism that it misrepresents torture as having been useful in the hunt for bin Laden. As far as I can tell, the film nowhere shows torture leading to useful intelligence. Early in the first act a detainee is tortured to try to get him to reveal the date of an upcoming attack; however, the detainee does not break, the attack takes place, and it is ultimately only through pure trickery that the interrogators later are able to get something useful from him with respect to the hunt for bin Laden. At a few other points in the film, other detainees are seen offering up little bits of useful information, either in person or on video, but it is not clear whether this is because of torture: some clearly are being mistreated, but it is never clear that they were tortured to extract information (rather than just being in a foreign prison where prisoners are routinely mistreated), or that any of the information they offered up was the result of this mistreatment (in the sense that they would not otherwise have been forthcoming). Furthermore, the information they offered never, as far I can remember, added to that offered by others who showed no indication at all of having been tortured. The principal CIA interrogators on the ground in the film believe in the value of torture, but the film never seems to support that stance. If I have missed something, perhaps others can fill me in, but I came away from this film feeling that it presented torture as fairly useless.
This is not to say that I have no misgivings about the film; in fact, I don't think the film should have been made at all so soon after the events it dramatizes. Compression into a 2½-hour Hollywood drama naturally requires one to play fast-and-loose with the facts in a number of ways, and this is problematic since right now the public needs to know how the hunt actually proceeded. I certainly would like to know a lot more about it than I do, but I feel no more clear about it after watching the film than I did before. If people simply viewed the film as entertainment, then there would be no harm—in fact, taken in that light it is a very good film—but inevitably it will inform what many people actually believe about the way the intelligence world works. Whether or not it misrepresents torture, the film, by its non-documentary nature, necessarily creates a muddle where right now we need clarity.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Personally, I've never quite known what to make of the Death of God theologians, which so far hasn't lost me any sleep. Though I share the opinion that God isn't real, I can't shake the idea that they were simply making up the rest of it as they went. Being theologians, I guess you'd say.
— Dale McGowan, Atheism for Dummies (Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons Canada, 2013), p. 141.
Friday, July 26, 2013
—Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Anarchism (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005), p. 139You refer to the Pentagon, as is usually done, as a defense organization. In 1947, when the National Defense Act was passed, the former War Department—the American department concerned with war which up to that time was called honestly the War Department—had its name changed to the Defense Department. I was a student then and didn't think I was very sophisticated, but I knew and everyone knew that this meant that to whatever extent the American military had been involved in defense in the past—and partially it had been so—this was now over: since it was being called the Defense Department, that meant it was going to to be a department of aggression, nothing else.