Biden Time

I'm increasingly confused by criticism of Joe Biden, which seems to be primarily of the form "I agree, but..." The latest bombshell from Shoeless Joe? Russia has problems. Well, okay.

While tact and diplomacy have their place, I find it hard to dislike a guy whose chief vice is being too honest. Would that we had more such men in government.

Koolaide, Kush, And What Else?..

..Old School Convertibles. Summer trunk music. If you own a car, it should play this whenever it is on.

Download Mixtape | Provided by DatPiff.com

What A Game

Mark Buehrle is having the best career ever.

Hitler: Overrated?

So, enough theory. Hitler: Overrated or Underrated? ...
Anyway, I've been trying out this weird little argument lately. It goes like this: aren't we lucky that Hitler was such a terrible artist?

I don't mean, "what if Hitler were accepted into the Vienna academy?" It's likely we would be better off if Hitler, lousy artist or not, had been able to pursue painting. But what if, after being rejected, after becoming Fuhrer, we looked back at his paintings and were forced to recognize genius? This is a "Hitler as van Gogh" hypothesis. Many artists aren't really appreciated until after their death, after all.

Of course, the first time I suggested this, someone asked me how I knew he was such a bad artist... and I had no idea. I was simply going on assumption. Fortunately I was able to find the pages here and here. The gist of it is that Hitler, while having some talent, was basically a hack. He supported himself by painting postcards (by necessity, these are fairly derivative), and while his architectural features are rendered in loving detail, living figures tend to be disproportionate and haphazard.

Third, notice the perspectives. Architectural perspectives are rendered with extreme precision, with almost loving attention to detail; however, people and animals are out of proportion, poorly articulated, and vastly out of scale with the backgrounds. Figures are rendered with wanton disregard for anatomy or accurate animation. This is the primary reason he was rejected by the Vienna School of Fine Arts: "Test drawing unsatisfactory."

So we can reassure ourselves that Hitler was nothing terribly interesting on the art front. What if he had been? I'm not sure how we would handle it. Hitler, in contemporary language, occupies a unique role: he is a historical individual with no redeeming qualities, the nadir of moral expression. And he occurred after the bulk of our moral and historical framework was in place -- Nero and Attila the Hun are less singularly alarming for that reason. What would we do without him? Probably substitute Stalin -- Stalin doesn't have a lot going for him, though he was smarter than Hitler. World War II would have gone quite differently, save for a number of monumentally poor strategic decisions by Hitler.

But switching to Stalin only reframes the question. We seem to need someone to think of as unequivocally bad. In contemporary debate, it's often easy to tar all Democrats or all Republicans, or Obama or Bush* with this brush. Mature positions, in my experience, have fewer and fewer individuals painted as pure black (but plenty of dark gray, certainly), but we can all, seemingly, agree on Hitler. So, in an extremely limited way, we're lucky that there's no particular reason to say "That Hitler guy? not as bad as he seems."

And yet, too many people are out there defending Hitler on wholly irrational grounds. Not many, thankfully, but still too many.

*Seemingly inept and authoritarian, but still no Hitler.

The Over/Under on Underrated Oeuvres

While I am, as you may have noticed, a big fan of context, I also think that "overrated" and "underrated" are two of the less interesting concepts in criticism. Joe Posnanski adeptly demonstrates the problems with "underrated" as a long-term reputation.

Underrated is a Zen place to be. What I mean by that is you can only be underrated for as long as people do not notice that you are underrated. Once someone starts calling you underrated, you begin to lose your footing. When enough people start calling you underrated, you stop being underrated. And when you become known as the “most underrated anything,” well, the jig is up.

Overrated has slightly different problems. When you say something is overrated, there is a risk that what you are actually saying is that you object to other people enjoying it. It actually directs your point away from whatever it is you object to, and makes it an attack on the fans. Here's the thing: fans are easy targets. You can find idiots in favor of nearly anything; it's very easy, in any sort of public debate, for both sides to trot out opposing idiots as straw men.

The nice thing about this as a logical fallacy is that the designated idiot has no doubt committed all manner of extravagant crimes against logic in the first place, making yours look not so bad. Of course, what happens in the end is that both sides feel free to ignore each other, and you get a nice display of pomp and fury without the risk of any real communication occurring.

An example: Rush Limbaugh is not really worth paying attention to. Some would say he's a big fat idiot. That is perhaps not productive discourse, but I feel relatively comfortable saying that Limbaugh is not acting in good faith. But, for some reason, Limbaugh has been big news lately. He seems to have a certain amount of clout in the GOP, but it's hard to say for sure -- maybe he's just easier to spot nowadays due to the lack obvious leadership in the GOP. But anointing him leader of the GOP is actually an advantage for the Democrats, because it makes the Republicans look crazy. And the gist of the argument becomes, "Rush Limbaugh is overrated." While this is politically useful, it has the downside of focusing even more attention on Limbaugh. So he becomes a bigger deal, gets more coverage, and increasing the perception that he's overrated.

Along the same lines is the practice of reading about celebrities in order to feel outraged at how much coverage they receive. Some people are "famous for being famous," but even originally noteworthy people are sometimes swallowed up by their own fame. Arguably, I am contributing to the problem even now.

But back to my main point: while the mechanisms of these cultural feedback loops are interesting, the contents themselves rarely are. When you claim something is overrated, you're giving a large, nebulous group of people control of the context. While in some cases the overrating has its own significance -- Limbaugh being overrated translates into real political power, for example -- it's still peripheral to the core argument. Eventually, you have to get down the business of explaining why he's wrong (I am assuming, for the purpose of argument, that you can find something to disagree with Rush Limbaugh about).

EDIT: And after that, you have to get down to the real business of explaining why you're right.

Twissa Twis

Twista can be real nice. His latest Category F5 album is one of those times when he is. The music is good, and I'm interested to see the kind of numbers this release will do. It was independent and I thought the marketing was done well. Twista got real tight with the most popular Chicago hip-hop blog and reaped the benefits with tons of relevant exposure. Furthermore, I think they designed the album to encourage single-track download sales, accomplishing this through a number of diverse and well-executed high-profile features. Fan of Kellz? Then you gotta have that "Yellow Light" track. Kanye nut? Then that"Alright" joint is a must. Gucci and OJ devotee? "Walking On Ice" bangs. Oh yeah, and there's that sweet Akon cut. Twista basically just packed an album together with songs he thought would be hits. Nice work.

If you got the official release, make sure to download this stunner with fellow fast-spitter Tech N9ne that leaked last week. It didn't make the album due to sample-clearance issues. The sample is a Jesus Christ Superstar song. The song is fantastic.

Twista - Problems (Feat. Tech N9ne)

A Case of Mistaken Identity

The really fortunate thing, when one is playing Devil's Advocate, is that one is not tasked with proving Satan's innocence. Such as thing is by definition impossible. One need merely prove he is not Satan.

See also: A Tale of Two Santas

Whitey: Santa Claus, you stand accused of crimes against humanity. How do you plead?
Bender: Not Santa!
[Farnsworth stands up and points at Bender.]
Farnsworth: There he is again!
[He shoots Bender in the back.]

Conspicuous Signals

While the Daily Dish is often fascinating, this post troubles me. There are a number of assumptions with troubling consequences. It is itself a response to Matt Yglesias, who regrets that reading a book on the Kindle does not have the same signaling capacity as reading it on paper. Conor Clarke objects to his concern on the basis that it is a desire for "conspicuous consumption." He refutes conspicuous consumption in this fashion:

First, the supply of status in a given society is fixed. If I go from being the 198,745,647th most popular person in the United States to the 198,745,644th most popular person, I must displace some others on the way up. In the game of status, not everyone can be a winner. Second, conspicuous consumption leads to an arms-race mentality that produces wasteful consumption. Every dollar or minute I spend pruning my outfit or adjusting my bookshelf is a dollar or minute that I will not be spending on something intrinsically enjoyable, like writing a blog post.

Firstly, the notion of "status" as a single, linear scale is demonstrably nonsense. Consider the case where the book is Das Kapital, and then consider Atlas Shrugged. Each book will signal something different to different observers, not a flat "+15 status points." The idea of a unified status scale only works if you conflate "status" with "wealth" -- which, to be sure, often occurs in normal cases of conspicuous consumption (indeed, since the Kindle is an expensive luxury, it fits the traditional definition better than any single book). There is a difference between signals which are intended to convey superiority and those which are intended to convey certain values or interests (they may be intertwined, however).

Actually, the question of intent to signal is rather interesting. Yglesias could, if he wished, still purchase the physical copy of the book. Why doesn't he? The Kindle copy is cheaper and more convenient, functionally superior. If he bought the physical book, that would be a wasteful display -- conspicuous consumption.

Secondly and relatedly, Clarke assumes that all outward signs ("outfit...bookshelf") are there only to serve as signs. He seems to discount the possibility that one has read (or even intends to read) the books on one's bookshelf. Now, if the books are there to serve as status symbols, then they are false signals, a representation with no reality -- a lie, if you will. I think we can all agree, without further ado, that we disapprove of liars and especially posers. But why? Well, for one, they are polluting a formerly useful channel of communication.

While everything about us is, to some degree, a signal, books are especially useful in that regard. Signals are often symbols -- they stand for something else, a community, an idea. Your mohawk, my leather jacket, a briefcase -- they suggest things. A book, simply enough, stands for the text between its pages, and all its attendant notions. A well-understood book is very concise in this way. Not to mention, for the book to be at it's most effective, you should be reading it. It requires action and continued effort to display, and this is fundamentally honest. To carry around a book with no intention of reading it -- how sad!

So, a representation with no reality is a lie. Then what is a reality with no representation? Isn't this also dishonest? If I wrap a romance novel in brown paper because I am ashamed of it, there is something amiss. In that case, though, the concealment is a deliberate action on my part. For Yglesias, it is simply the nature of the Kindle that causes the appearance to be separated from the contents. Obviously, the Kindle has many advantages, and I wouldn't judge him for using it, but it does lack a certain intrinsic honesty found in books.

As I mentioned, the problem with signals is that they can be faked. This is the disadvantage of brevity. Some things are easier to fake, however. It is easier to carry one book falsely than to arrange a whole fake bookshelf, and harder still to make sure all those book are well-worn and tastefully annotated (note: but not impossible). The lesson here, however, is not to say "all representations are false", throw up your hands and give up on communicating with other humans. It simply requires that you not take any one signal in isolation. CONTEXT MATTERS.

Now, this does produce something of an argument in favor of "conspicuous consumption," from the observer's point of view. If someone is willing to spend money on something, they must care about it to some degree -- or they care about appearing to care. Sometimes this is good enough. This is how I interpret the custom of wearing a suit to an interview: it doesn't really prove that you're "professional"; it proves that you realize they expect you to look "professional," which is a good first step.

As a final point, Clarke mentions that one can now use Facebook and Twitter to substitute for the "book cover effect" by creating virtual bookshelves and such. These are great (I use one) and have the advantage that you can keep note of books you've borrowed from the library and read (conspicuous non-consumption?). On they other hand, if you're concerned about false signals, they're much easier to fake because, after all, they're free. I concede, however, that free-ness removes the issue of wasteful spending. More importantly though, these programs aren't really a replacement, since they operate on the Internet. Much as I love the Internet, it still pales in comparison to the physical world as a medium for socialization.

In essence, I object to Conor Clarke on the grounds that not all visible activity is conspicuous consumption.

EDIT: The whole blogpile begins with this piece in Vanity Fair, which is interesting but pushes the status/conspicuous consumption angle much more heavily. Clarke is justified in using the term on those grounds, but it was not clear to me from his piece (see, folks? context). Derek Thompson's response to the VF piece is also worth looking at. Everything I argued above still holds, but I may have misrepresented Conor Clarke on the way. Hopefully I can tackle this whole "culture snobbery" thing from another angle soon.

Variation on a Theme

A possible refinement of "power corrupts...":

Power that is felt to be undeserved engenders feelings of paranoia in the powerful. This paranoia naturally leads to abuse of power, which heightens the sense of guilt/inadequacy, leading to further paranoia, etc.

Only holds true for certain personality types, of course. The possibility of a neurotic, guilt-racked dictator is somewhat intriguing, though. Paranoia and the abuse of power go hand in hand, as in Stalin, Ahmadinejad, Joe McCarthy, and Bush/Cheney (obviously these represent varying levels of abuse).

EDIT: Inspiration for this actually comes from this here Joe Posnanski article on LeBron James/Nike.

Subjectivity

I am always wracked by sentimentality, in large part because I demand to live in a context rich with emotional meaning. I invest everything around me with a narrative, or a place in a larger narrative, until everything is more or less humming with crucial purpose. You may be wondering, what does this have to do with Red Faction?

This piece on Penny Arcade touches on a number of things I've been going on about lately (or will be going on about shortly), mainly a certain kind of subjectivity in art. Video games are especially apt in this way, since the actions of the player change the content of the game in a much more recognizable way than, for example, how one approaches a painting.

Also, Tycho is an excellent writer, so touches on these things much more gracefully than I would. This, as my brother once said to me, is the problem of being a philosopher rather than a poet -- that a poet can say things more elegantly, more quickly than a philosopher can. On the other hand, as a philosopher one can explain things at greater depth. I have, I think, more ability with poetry, but in any case I find it difficult to be both at once.

Also, I will say Casey has more grace with philosophy than I do, and his blog is well worth reading.

R.I.P.

"Love never die, but it can kill you." - Dwayne Carter