as near as i can figure them, here are the lyrics to my favorite freestyle - hysteria by immortal technique.
honorable mentions: what hip hop is; bangbus emblem.
they used to call us communists for fighting america
now they call us terrorists to spread hysteria
let me just say this, without sounding redundant
who the fuck really gains the most from blowing up london
and who really made bin laden the man he is
the CIA and saudi arabia did
but that's the past and the future is here
iraq was a design so for some people the future is clear
a christmas tree pyramid with a star as an eye
like the satellite in orbit watching me from the sky
every country wants a piece of the american pie
but that means you have to co-sign america's lies
so you can criticize human rights in cuba and china
but not in israel or the philippines and places you find em
that are allies of the country i live in
whose clothes are made by slave labor, women and children
yeah, i know stupid we're all part of that hypocrisy too
but i don't front like it's democracy dude
i don't pretend troops are peacekeepers who don't murder
and they don't create colonies whose governments serve us
moving away our economics like we share a techtonic
plates in your vest are no good, the weapons are sonic
the war on terror evolves like strains of the chronic
from the biologic to the propaganda topics
but remember, the system can never stop when it's been set into motion
like volcanic eruptions on the floor of the ocean
my purpose is to burst to the surface
immersed in the smoldering lava from verses,
surrounded by murder mamis, not bitches that's worthless
i cut chickenheads off, like hexes and curses
weapons i purchased makes homeland security nervous
i run pockets of purses like subway searches
i'm robbing masonic temples disguised as churches
i'm busy, so i'll leave that one for you to interpret
serpents are merchants of military industry murder
the beef is heating up, like the mad cow in your burger
fathom the call of cattle cannibalism
factory farms are like a fucking animal prison
a microcosm of adam smith's capitalism
that's america's real religion, given as the mark of the beast to the christians
THE DESTRUCTION OF BABYLON, MOTHERFUCKER THAT'S MY MISSION
3/16/08
the axioms of evil
i propose to axiomatize evil, the better to understand it and thereby squelch it.
1. axiom of choice: we choose whether or not to do evil.
2. axiom of plenitude: there's plenty of potential evil.
3. axiom of intensionality: no matter how good we are, there is evil within us.
4. axiom of interference: our perceived self-interest interferes with our ability to judge what is evil.
as i have not been able to prove completeness in this theory, it's possible that more axioms will need to be added.
1. axiom of choice: we choose whether or not to do evil.
2. axiom of plenitude: there's plenty of potential evil.
3. axiom of intensionality: no matter how good we are, there is evil within us.
4. axiom of interference: our perceived self-interest interferes with our ability to judge what is evil.
as i have not been able to prove completeness in this theory, it's possible that more axioms will need to be added.
the 5 Ss of stress relief
i figured out something else i can blog about: lists.
here are the 5 Ss of stress relief. it rests on a base of scientifically valid knowledge, but the superstructure is due to me and my roommate.
1. sex.
2. sweat. i.e. exercise.
(2a. sexercise.)
3. smiles. laughter is a stress relievant. think "relievant" is not a word? kiss my butt.
4. spicy food.
5. sleep.
here are the 5 Ss of stress relief. it rests on a base of scientifically valid knowledge, but the superstructure is due to me and my roommate.
1. sex.
2. sweat. i.e. exercise.
(2a. sexercise.)
3. smiles. laughter is a stress relievant. think "relievant" is not a word? kiss my butt.
4. spicy food.
5. sleep.
I'm baaaaaaaack
it's the six month anniversary of my last post. happy aniversary!
i figure i should post at least once every six-month period.
also, happy st. patrick's day!
i figure i should post at least once every six-month period.
also, happy st. patrick's day!
9/16/07
holy fucking shit
it's being reported that the university of st. thomas (the one in st. paul, minnesota) cancelled a talk by archbishop desmond tutu in response to false allegations of anti-semitism. if this is true, it is consistent with an accelerated trend of attacks on the leftist presence in academia and academic fora by the extreme right. here's a recap of some of the latest.
- erwin chemerinsky, one of the leading constitutional scholars in the US, was offered the deanship of the new law school at UC irvine, and accepted about a week before the offer was revoked. the evidence strongly suggests that it was behind-the-scenes campaigning by right-wing lawyers not affiliated with the university that led to the offer being withdrawn. it now appears likely, in part to to the outrage expressed by law faculty of all political stripes, that the offer will be reinstated and the chancellor of the irvine campus might have to leave instead.
- norman finkelstein was denied tenure at depaul, despite being unquestionably qualified. he had been the target of a campaign led by alan dershowitz, an academic of much fame but no distinction, whose writings in finkelstein's field - the history and politics of the israel-palestine conflict - are utterly idiotic. the evidence suggests that it was political pressure from outsiders that led to depaul's decision. mehrene larudee, another depaul faculty member considered for tenure (and a umass alum), was denied tenure as well. She, too, was considered a strong academic and a slam-dunk for tenure, but as a strong supporter of finkelstein she too was undoubtedly targeted for denial of tenure for reasons other than merit. finkelstein was later denied the customary year of teaching that follows tenure denial, ostensibly - but not especially plausibly - for conduct issues. He recently reached a settlement with the depaul administration and resigned.
- ward churchill, a leading native american scholar and a tenured professor at the university of
colorado boulder, was fired, ostensibly for academic misconduct. it is well-understood, however, that he was in reality fired because of a fascist campaign.
- andrew card, a man closely associated with the war crimes of the bush regime was awarded an honorary degree at the umass amherst commencement last may. there is no direct evidence of this being the result of a right-wing campaign, but it is a plausible hypothesis, given that he has no accomplishments to speak of, and umass leaders would have understood very well the loss of credibility that comes with honoring terrorists like card.
- brandeis university invited jimmy carter to speak about israeli apartheid - but only if torture enthusiast alan dershowitz was allowed a rebuttal. eventually, they relented somewhat, allowing separate but consecutive talks.
UPDATE (Oct. 10): st. thomas reversed its earlier decision. apparently the attack on tutu was too much even for the extremists at the ADL.
- erwin chemerinsky, one of the leading constitutional scholars in the US, was offered the deanship of the new law school at UC irvine, and accepted about a week before the offer was revoked. the evidence strongly suggests that it was behind-the-scenes campaigning by right-wing lawyers not affiliated with the university that led to the offer being withdrawn. it now appears likely, in part to to the outrage expressed by law faculty of all political stripes, that the offer will be reinstated and the chancellor of the irvine campus might have to leave instead.
- norman finkelstein was denied tenure at depaul, despite being unquestionably qualified. he had been the target of a campaign led by alan dershowitz, an academic of much fame but no distinction, whose writings in finkelstein's field - the history and politics of the israel-palestine conflict - are utterly idiotic. the evidence suggests that it was political pressure from outsiders that led to depaul's decision. mehrene larudee, another depaul faculty member considered for tenure (and a umass alum), was denied tenure as well. She, too, was considered a strong academic and a slam-dunk for tenure, but as a strong supporter of finkelstein she too was undoubtedly targeted for denial of tenure for reasons other than merit. finkelstein was later denied the customary year of teaching that follows tenure denial, ostensibly - but not especially plausibly - for conduct issues. He recently reached a settlement with the depaul administration and resigned.
- ward churchill, a leading native american scholar and a tenured professor at the university of
colorado boulder, was fired, ostensibly for academic misconduct. it is well-understood, however, that he was in reality fired because of a fascist campaign.
- andrew card, a man closely associated with the war crimes of the bush regime was awarded an honorary degree at the umass amherst commencement last may. there is no direct evidence of this being the result of a right-wing campaign, but it is a plausible hypothesis, given that he has no accomplishments to speak of, and umass leaders would have understood very well the loss of credibility that comes with honoring terrorists like card.
- brandeis university invited jimmy carter to speak about israeli apartheid - but only if torture enthusiast alan dershowitz was allowed a rebuttal. eventually, they relented somewhat, allowing separate but consecutive talks.
UPDATE (Oct. 10): st. thomas reversed its earlier decision. apparently the attack on tutu was too much even for the extremists at the ADL.
8/24/07
the politics of america
a compilation of poll results summarizing what attentive people already know: liberal values enjoy strong majority support in the united states; and many people who subscribe to these values describe themselves as "moderates" rather than "liberals." probably makes sense, because liberalism is basically a compromise approach between the semi-fascist views that pass as "conservative" in this country, and socialism, a sensible political position.
8/6/07
funny video of the month
this schoolhouse rock-style version of pirates and emperors is really well-done. i have just one complaint, and that's that they use "thug" too much.
R.I.P. raul hilberg
raul hilberg, who pioneered the academic study of the nazi holocaust, has died of lung cancer at 81.
hilberg, whose family fled vienna in advance of the nazis, was studying the holocaust before it became cool in the late '60's - before Holocaust studies became an ideology and an industry. hilberg always supported norman finkelstein, the best-known and hardest-hitting critic of the holocaust industry, against his extraordinarily nasty opposition.
hilberg was legit.
hilberg, whose family fled vienna in advance of the nazis, was studying the holocaust before it became cool in the late '60's - before Holocaust studies became an ideology and an industry. hilberg always supported norman finkelstein, the best-known and hardest-hitting critic of the holocaust industry, against his extraordinarily nasty opposition.
hilberg was legit.
8/5/07
exceptives: the mystery deepens
larry horn points out a further problem for the hypothesis that exceptives are licensed by universals, from imperative sentences with free choice any.
the tentative conclusion: exceptives appear to be licenseable by any any, regardless of its universality.
pick any card from the deck, except the joker.it is hard to see how this sentence can be paraphrased as a universal. the best that i can come up with is:
for every x, x a card, x is such that i give you the option of picking it, except for x = the joker.this interpretation seems forced. it interprets the imperative as giving options rather than giving an order, and moreover it involves a quantifier (any, no less) taking wide scope over the imperative force, which is generally seen as a no-no.
the tentative conclusion: exceptives appear to be licenseable by any any, regardless of its universality.
7/29/07
first crack at the exceptives problem
i suggested in a previous blog post that my earlier view that only universals license exceptives may be wrong, because a range of determiners and combinations of determiners and either cardinals or certain adjectives appear to license exceptives as well. now i'm going to suggest once again that it may just be universals. i will suggest that every construction that licenses exceptives falls into one of the following categories:
1. a quantifier that is a universal on its face (ex. every)
2. a quantifier that is not universal on its face, but is logically equivalent to a universal quantifier (ex. no)
3. a non-quantificational construction that can nonetheless assert a universal (ex. the tallest)
4. a construction that admits of a presupposed partition, with (implied) universal quantification over the partition's elements.
the first category is mostly obvious. what i take it to include which may be not obvious is generics, which are arguably not universal on their face because they have no face - i.e. they are invisible. i am talking about sentences like the following:
the second category - of quantifiers logically equivalent to universals - is mostly there to capture negation. negative quantifiers are usually translated as negated existential quantifiers, but they are logically equivalent to universally negated sentences. for example, nobody loves you is typically translated as it is not the case that for some x, x loves you. but it can also be translated as for every x, it is not the case that x loves you. given this translation, we have a universal for the exceptive to leech off of.
sentential negation also admits exceptives, as in mary hasn't kissed john, except last new year's. in davidsonian semantics and its neo- and semi- varieties, sentential negation can be seen as negative quantification over the sentence's event argument. so the last sentence can be translated for every past event e, e is not an event of mary kissing john, except event e' last new year's. so sentential negation falls in this category too. negative polarity any falls in this category as well. free choice any can fall in this category or the last one, depending on how you look at it - you can consider it facially a universal or just translatable as one, as you fancy.
the third category consists of non-quantificational structures that can carry quantificational meanings, like the five, the tallest, and the only. i will suggest that this is where zamparelli's analysis starts to become relevant. it's also where i start to go out on a limb. what i'm going to claim here is that unlike ordinary the, the in these cases includes a universal component. zamparelli's analysis makes this somewhat plausible, because it allows us to associate universal quantification with the strong DP syntax rather than making it a purely lexical phenomenon. what i'll suppose is that inherently quantificational determiners like every are necessarily found in SDP, the strong determiner phrase; some determiners, like some, can never be universal for semantic reasons, and they must appear in the predicative determiner phrase, PDP; and others, like the and perhaps few and many, can appear either in SDP or PDP, and receive an interpretation accordingly.
zamparelli noted that the possessive can be predicative or non-predicative, depending on whether it is followed by a cardinal or not:
i'm suggesting that the same happens with the. it is located in PDP unless there is something like a cardinal, a superlative or only to force it into SDP. as a consequence, the is not universal in the boys, but is universal in the three boys or the tallest boys, allowing these phrases to license exceptives.
two problems arise: first, what is the if not universal? presumably it is a group. the collective/distributive analysis of definites is well known. i suggest that when the is in PDP, it has a collective, group, interpretation, which does not require asserting something of all the members of the group. in PDP, the has a distributive, universal, interpretation. i wish i could say i have independent evidence for this analysis. maybe i'll get some for christmas.
second, there's the fact that the in SDP is not downward entailing in its first argument, casting doubt on the analysis that it is universal.
what about few and many? if we follow partee's 1986 paper many quantifiers, these are ambiguous between a cardinal interpretation and a quantificational one. maybe the cardinals are in PDP and the quantifiers in SDP; or maybe paolo acquaviva's breakdown of quantifiers like few into negation + many engages the SDP layer through negation. it seems like i'm grasping at straws here, but ultimately i don't think these analyses are as implausible as they seem from my presentation. i'm a little ill and i've been writing all day, so give me a break.
the last category is of quantifiers that admit of presupposed partitions with implied universal quantification over the partition's elements. if you don't know what i'm talking about, refer to my previous posts here and here. what i suggest is that SDP licenses such presuppositions, so that quantifiers that appear in SDP can admit of these interpretations, and license exceptives, even though their semantics are not universal. this applies to most, as well as many and few when these are interpreted with non-cardinal meaning. cardinals, some, and a(n) can't appear in SDP so they never admit the presupposition interpretation.
this approach predicts that many and few can only allow the presupposed meaning on their proportional interpretations and not the cardinal ones. i contend this is true. care to contradict me?
this approach raises the question of why the presupposition interpretation is not available with universals. i claim that it is, but you'd never notice it because it's logically entailed by the universal interpretation. for example, every high schooler helped out logically entails [presupposing a partition P of the set of high schoolers, for every element Q of P,] every x, x an element of Q, helped out. this is true for every partition P, so the presupposition is always utterly redundant, hence undetectable.
actually, i wonder if the universal interpretation of the can be brought in under this category, thereby eliminating the problems mentioned above. maybe the best interpretation of the tallest boys helped out is [given a partition P on the tallest boys, for every element Q of P] the boys x, x an element of Q, helped out. this seems to get the semantics right.
also, now that i think of it, aren't exceptives pretty okay with the when the sentence's predicate is highly distributive, but not when when it tends to admit of a collective reading?
the boys have blue eyes, except jimmy
*the boys lifted the table, except jimmy
having blue eyes is very individual, which highly favors the distributive reading which i'm arguing is associated with the universal interpretation and SDP, while lifting the table strongly suggests a collective reading, which is associated with a non-universal interpretation and PDP. maybe this whole analysis can be made plausible yet.
now what accounts for the Det friend that i have pattern? i hope it's not restrictions on movement, cause goddamn, i don't understand that stuff.
1. a quantifier that is a universal on its face (ex. every)
2. a quantifier that is not universal on its face, but is logically equivalent to a universal quantifier (ex. no)
3. a non-quantificational construction that can nonetheless assert a universal (ex. the tallest)
4. a construction that admits of a presupposed partition, with (implied) universal quantification over the partition's elements.
the first category is mostly obvious. what i take it to include which may be not obvious is generics, which are arguably not universal on their face because they have no face - i.e. they are invisible. i am talking about sentences like the following:
bears are godless killing machinesi take these to be universal statements over typical instances of bears, in the first example, and mary's mornings, in the second. i won't defend this view here; i may defend it elsewhere.
mary takes aspirin in the morning
the second category - of quantifiers logically equivalent to universals - is mostly there to capture negation. negative quantifiers are usually translated as negated existential quantifiers, but they are logically equivalent to universally negated sentences. for example, nobody loves you is typically translated as it is not the case that for some x, x loves you. but it can also be translated as for every x, it is not the case that x loves you. given this translation, we have a universal for the exceptive to leech off of.
sentential negation also admits exceptives, as in mary hasn't kissed john, except last new year's. in davidsonian semantics and its neo- and semi- varieties, sentential negation can be seen as negative quantification over the sentence's event argument. so the last sentence can be translated for every past event e, e is not an event of mary kissing john, except event e' last new year's. so sentential negation falls in this category too. negative polarity any falls in this category as well. free choice any can fall in this category or the last one, depending on how you look at it - you can consider it facially a universal or just translatable as one, as you fancy.
the third category consists of non-quantificational structures that can carry quantificational meanings, like the five, the tallest, and the only. i will suggest that this is where zamparelli's analysis starts to become relevant. it's also where i start to go out on a limb. what i'm going to claim here is that unlike ordinary the, the in these cases includes a universal component. zamparelli's analysis makes this somewhat plausible, because it allows us to associate universal quantification with the strong DP syntax rather than making it a purely lexical phenomenon. what i'll suppose is that inherently quantificational determiners like every are necessarily found in SDP, the strong determiner phrase; some determiners, like some, can never be universal for semantic reasons, and they must appear in the predicative determiner phrase, PDP; and others, like the and perhaps few and many, can appear either in SDP or PDP, and receive an interpretation accordingly.
zamparelli noted that the possessive can be predicative or non-predicative, depending on whether it is followed by a cardinal or not:
these are my toys. those are my toys too.in the first sentence, the possessor my is in PDP, which allows an empty SDP (or allows SDP not to project), so there is no uniqueness requirement on the possessive. in the second sentence, the possessor is forced to SDP by the presence of the cardinal, which imposes the uniqueness requirement, shown by the unacceptability of adding the second sentence. the same would be true if "three" was replaced by "only" or any superlative.
*these are my three toys. those are my three toys too.
i'm suggesting that the same happens with the. it is located in PDP unless there is something like a cardinal, a superlative or only to force it into SDP. as a consequence, the is not universal in the boys, but is universal in the three boys or the tallest boys, allowing these phrases to license exceptives.
two problems arise: first, what is the if not universal? presumably it is a group. the collective/distributive analysis of definites is well known. i suggest that when the is in PDP, it has a collective, group, interpretation, which does not require asserting something of all the members of the group. in PDP, the has a distributive, universal, interpretation. i wish i could say i have independent evidence for this analysis. maybe i'll get some for christmas.
second, there's the fact that the in SDP is not downward entailing in its first argument, casting doubt on the analysis that it is universal.
the five high schoolers helped outthis might be rescued by a von fintel-style strawsonian condition on entailment; or maybe we'll have to refine how we talk about universals and entailment in order to make this work.
--/-->
the five tenth graders helped out
what about few and many? if we follow partee's 1986 paper many quantifiers, these are ambiguous between a cardinal interpretation and a quantificational one. maybe the cardinals are in PDP and the quantifiers in SDP; or maybe paolo acquaviva's breakdown of quantifiers like few into negation + many engages the SDP layer through negation. it seems like i'm grasping at straws here, but ultimately i don't think these analyses are as implausible as they seem from my presentation. i'm a little ill and i've been writing all day, so give me a break.
the last category is of quantifiers that admit of presupposed partitions with implied universal quantification over the partition's elements. if you don't know what i'm talking about, refer to my previous posts here and here. what i suggest is that SDP licenses such presuppositions, so that quantifiers that appear in SDP can admit of these interpretations, and license exceptives, even though their semantics are not universal. this applies to most, as well as many and few when these are interpreted with non-cardinal meaning. cardinals, some, and a(n) can't appear in SDP so they never admit the presupposition interpretation.
this approach predicts that many and few can only allow the presupposed meaning on their proportional interpretations and not the cardinal ones. i contend this is true. care to contradict me?
many scandinavians have won the nobel prize, except finnsthis should mean that for every scandinavian country, relatively many, but not necessarily absolutely many, nationals of that country won the nobel prize.
this approach raises the question of why the presupposition interpretation is not available with universals. i claim that it is, but you'd never notice it because it's logically entailed by the universal interpretation. for example, every high schooler helped out logically entails [presupposing a partition P of the set of high schoolers, for every element Q of P,] every x, x an element of Q, helped out. this is true for every partition P, so the presupposition is always utterly redundant, hence undetectable.
actually, i wonder if the universal interpretation of the can be brought in under this category, thereby eliminating the problems mentioned above. maybe the best interpretation of the tallest boys helped out is [given a partition P on the tallest boys, for every element Q of P] the boys x, x an element of Q, helped out. this seems to get the semantics right.
also, now that i think of it, aren't exceptives pretty okay with the when the sentence's predicate is highly distributive, but not when when it tends to admit of a collective reading?
the boys have blue eyes, except jimmy
*the boys lifted the table, except jimmy
having blue eyes is very individual, which highly favors the distributive reading which i'm arguing is associated with the universal interpretation and SDP, while lifting the table strongly suggests a collective reading, which is associated with a non-universal interpretation and PDP. maybe this whole analysis can be made plausible yet.
now what accounts for the Det friend that i have pattern? i hope it's not restrictions on movement, cause goddamn, i don't understand that stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)