Atom Feed
November 14, 2006
Garth Turner, the Canadian member of parliament who was kicked out of the Conservative party for blogging (ok, so I’m probably oversimplifying) is still blogging away, and more committed than ever to using connective technology to reinvigorate democracy. [Tags: garth_turner canada politics blogging ]
Talk loud. Be foul-mouthed. But please not both.
Neither would be ok, too.
The blog of The Sunlight Foundation, a group I admire, has been named the best blog in the world, in a competition organized by a German broadcaster, with judges from around the world.
The Sunlight Foundation has an excellent blog, and it looks great in a swimsuit, but the notion of “the best blog in the world” would sit sort of awkwardly on any site, don’t you think?
Anyway, congrats to the Foundation and to all the little people who made it possible :) [Tags: blogs sunlight_foundation]
November 13, 2006
If you, like me, have been getting an error message from Google Docs telling you to enable Javascript, but Javascript is already enabled, a Google discussion board has come up with an answer: Turn off Google Accelerator and reload Google Docs. [Tags: google javascript google_docs]
November 12, 2006
I’m installing a power supply for my PC. It has a large fan on what is either the top or bottom. Do I install it with the fan facing up or facing down? I tried turning it on and couldn’t really tell if it’s an intake or outflow fan—there was very little breeze coming out of it, so I’m guessing it’s an intake.
(FWIW, our electrical poltergeists seem to have moved back in after a couple of years of vacationing elsewhere. In the past two weeks, my motherboard, amplifier, computer backup system and basement light fixture have all failed.)
November 11, 2006
Aldon Hynes addresses an important question in his response to the so-true-it’s-a-parody Washington Post op-ed by Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu:
So, what is the underlying message of all the political advertisements that you’ve seen over the past couple weeks? Behind all the negative ads and false information, it seems as if the key message of political ads over this past cycle is “We think you’re stupid”.
And, frequently: Be afraid. (Then, of course, there are the weird Cruz Bustamante ads that touted him for California Insurance Commissioner because he lost weight, the subtext of which seems to have been “I am totally freaking nuts.”)
So, what was the subtext of the Deval PAtrick TV ads? (I hope his campaign keeps them up. And adds important metadata, such as when they ran.) Take the first one and the last one. Both are explicitly about hope. Neither says a single word about policy. All show a confident, likable man in a rush of admirers. The ads say that the election is not about issues. The ads show people how good it feels to place your trust in someone, as if you were a better person for doing so. The last one, shown when Patrick was virtually assured to victory, seems to me to be about governance: Once he’s elected, we have a chance to end the alienation we citizens have felt; the Democratic party has been corrupt with complacency, and has been more for the party functionaries than for us. All of them seem to say: Feel good because you support this candidate.
I’m not saying these are good subtexts, although I prefer trust and hope to “Shut up and cower,” for trust and hope are both requirements for democracy to work. But “Trust me, I’m likable,” and “We’ll assume agreement on the issues,” are not exactly where we want the democratic debate to go. On the other hand, the problem is probably more with campaigning through 30-second spots where there’s only enough time for direct appeals to the lizard portion of the brain or to the heart. [Tags: politics marketing deval_patrick aldon_hynes zephyr_teachout tim_woo ]
November 10, 2006
Thanks to Indigo and Colin Rhinesmith, a 46-minute video of my interview of Paul Graham is now available. It starts after the overflow crowd (Paul is a rock star) had introduced itself.
Paul raised some issues that I’ve been thinking about since. I fully intended to blog about them before this got posted, but Indigo and Colin beat me to it, damn them! ;) Paul is, to put it mildly, a stimulating thinker, speaker, writer, programmer and painter…
The discussion glancingly refers to a post of mine from earlier that day. (I’ve listened to the first few minutes and already have found places where I want to insert an explanation of what I meant. E.g., in saying that taste is that about which we don’t argue, I didn’t mean to imply that everything is a matter of taste.) [Tags: paul_graham berkman video]
A front page story by Jenn Abelson in the Boston Globe today covers the great sandwich controversy. It seems that a Panera’s in Worcester sued the shopping center its in for allowing a Qdoba (sic) burrito shop to open. Panera claimed its lease forbids any other sandwich shops from opening in the shopping center. The case went to court, and after the testimony of sandwich experts, the judge ruled against Panera. A burrito is not a sandwich.
This would have been a great example for my book of the absurdity of Aristotelian definition, and also its occasional necessity. (Unfortunately, I’ve turned in the final, copy-edited version.) The afffadavit of Judith A. Quick, former deputy director of the Standards and Labeling Division of the USDA said that the USDA definition of a sandwich is that it “consists of two distinct pieces of bread (or the top and bottom sections of a sliced roll or bun) with some kind of filling that contains meat or poultry.” Chris Schlesinger, chef and owner of All Star Sandwich Bar in Cambridge said in his affadacity that “A sandwich is of European roots and is generally recognized in our industry as two pieces of leavened bread with something in between, typically slices of meat and/or slices of cheese…A sandwich is typically served cold.”
Now, we could argue with these definitions. On the old Seinfeld I happened to see last night, Jerry says to Elaine, “You know, the whole concept of lunch is based on tuna.” So, clearly Quick’s definition fails. Quick’s would also rule out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Schlesinger’s is better, although it disrespects grilled cheese. And did he really have to bring in the ethnic note? Sure, sandwiches originated in Europe, but if you cut a Brazilian barbecued beef sandwich, does it not ooze?
While quibbling can make a definition better, it can’t make it perfect. But that’s ok. Definitions are almost always after the fact. Meaning does not originate in definitions. For example, we quibble with Quick and Schlesinger because we already have a sense of what a sandwich is. If Quick’s definition doesn’t allow PB&J, then that definition is simply wrong. This pre-existing sense of how the world is sliced is what enables us to come up with definitions. But the world’s slices aren’t as clean and neat as those made by the machine in the deli. So, while a tuna sandwich is the sort of example you could point at if someone wanted to know what sandwich is, an ice cream sandwich is not. Neither is the matzoh and haroset “sandwich” we eat at the Passover meal. Neither is two slices of pizza put face to face and turned into a “pizza sandwich” by your teenage son. These are all sandwiches in some sense, but are not good examples of sandwiches.
Eleanor Rosch, at UC Berkeley, would call a tuna sandwich a prototype sandwich. We organize experience around such prototypes, so that some sandwiches are clearly sandwiches (because they’re so like the prototype sandwiches) and others are sort-of, kind-of sandwiches. Prototypes, unlike definitions, are loose edged. We may be able to extract the features of a prototype to which we compare the rest of experience, but those features may not be consistent (e.g., Wittgenstein’s “game,” an example of a family resemblance in which there is no single feature shared by every member of the category) and certainly are not binary: A two-slice, face-to-face pizza slice sandwich is not a “real” sandwich, but it’s more of a sandwich than is a bucket of sand or a bee’s chin whisker.
But along comes a law suit and a judge has to draw a line where there is none in our infrastructure of meaning. Is a burrito a sandwich? Haul out the experts. Except, in this case, I would trust a linguistic expert more than a chef or regulator. In any case, the definitions we adduce are likely to be shaped by the things we’ve already decided—well, “decided” makes it sound as if it’s an act of reason instead of a groping of the features of our environment—should be covered by the definition.
So, we are in the odd position of thinking that definitions define things when in fact they often impose arbitrary divisions that obscure their real meaning. [Tags: everything_is_miscellaneous sandwich eleanor_rosch taxonomy prototypes aristotle]
November 9, 2006
Zack Exley is seeing his idea for “RootCamps” really take off. As of now, RootCamps are planned for SF, NY, Bloomington, Columbus and DC.
These events (with the exception of DC — see below for details) are free and open to all progressives who participated in the 2004 or 2006 elections — or even those who plan on being a part of 2008. These are “open space” conferences that allow all participants to hold sessions about their speciality, to present findings, tell stories, or important questions. You attend only the sessions that interest you — and there is plenty of time for learning to take place in hallway conversations.
I’m going to the DC one, although I have to miss the first day because my older brother, Andy, is receiving an award as Rheumatologist of the Year in NJ that day—an award he earned by spending too much time with his patients. [Tags: politics netroots zack_exley]
Joho the Blog uses WordPress blogging software.
Thank you, WordPress!
