November 26, 2007
A Case of the Mondays: List of Most Overrated Things
I wrote this note on Facebook while feeling somewhat contrarian. My rule here is that everything has to have a large number of defenders, and as small as possible a number of detractors. Of course everything here is culture-dependent; when a category makes sense only within a specific culture, I went with the West, or the United States.
Literature: Shakespeare. If they read Dan Brown in four hundred years, they'll consider him profound, too.
Leaders: Churchill. He had a forty-year career as a military adventurer and an unabashed imperialist, and even during World War Two, he engaged in futile attempts to preserve the British Empire. And Giuliani, who took credit for things others did, and screwed up the few things that did fall under his responsibility.
Political movements: economic populism. It's more often than not a cover for authoritarianism; the sort of leaders who help the poor the most are moderate social democrats like Roosevelt and Lula, not firebrands like Huey Long and Hugo Chávez. And new atheism, whose leaders openly express their political cluelessness.
Political issues: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israel and Palestine have ten million people between them; Congo has sixty, Myanmar fifty, and Sudan forty. Nice priorities, people.
Linguistics: the universal grammar. Every time a language violates it, Chomskyite grammarians incorporate its additional rules into their universal grammar, as if falsifiability has gone out of style.
Science: evolutionary psychology. It's essentially a political reaction to academic Marxism, and about as rigorous as you'd expect from a politicized science.
Economics: Amartya Sen. Countries that follow his prescriptions may avoid famine, but none of them has achieved first world status. And Milton Friedman, whose economic prescriptions didn't actually cause famine, but came fairly close to that in Chile.
Social science: fill-in-the-blank studies. If e.g. gender studies departments were really about studying gender relations rather than making feminists feel good, there wouldn't be controversy whenever one of them appointed a male chair.
Philosophy: Peter Singer. His presentations about poverty and animal rights are as deep as my seventh grade geography textbooks, and about as interesting.
Popular science: ScienceBlogs. Politics gets more hits than science, so ScienceBlogs recruits screamers rather than interesting popularizers or important scientists.
Music: Elvis Presley. Even Britney Spears is less flashy and more talented.
Television: 24. Every season has been the worst season so far. Lost, which is a laundry list of clichés and plot holes. And Seinfeld, where the acting is so bad I could probably do better, and the writing is even worse.
Food: anything at a fancy restaurant. I'll grant fancy restaurants that they're tastier than McDonald's, but they're not any healthier, and they have nothing on small delis or homemade food.
Media: punditry. If I want someone to tell me how to think, it's easier to just look up his issue profile than to read his fact-free tirades.
Books: political advocacy. See under media. George Lakoff deserves singular scorn for his armchair analysis of conservatism, but none of the others is much better.
Academics: core curricula. If you care about something you'll take a class in it voluntarily; if you don't, you'll forget everything you learned five years down the line. And private schools at all levels, for being twice as expensive as equally good public schools.
Posted by Alon Levy at 07:39 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Good list, the only things I'd bother to debate are the Shakespeare and Core Curriculum evaluations. There are Plenty of other Elizabethan playwrights we don't read for good reason... maybe Shakespeare's rep has been blow up beyond reason, but there is talent behind the words. As for CC, I like to think that students should be encouraged to take classes in a wide range of subjects to avoid total illiteracy at least. Hence lit majors should understand mathematics and political scientists should understand science... if you don't get why look at the Evolution debate.
But I'm only nitpicking for amusement.
Posted by: MikeM | Nov 26, 2007 7:59:48 AM
Shakespeare remains, if anything, underrated, with the exception of the plays Taming of the Shrew and Titus Andronicus.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 26, 2007 8:11:56 AM
Such a dissapointing paen to philistinism from such a good 'blog.
Posted by: C York | Nov 26, 2007 8:26:31 AM
I mostly agree. Re ScienceBlogs, there are a few good writers and popularizers there. I read The Loom, Uncertain Principles, and Cognitive Daily, and all are great. I avoid Pharygula, the most extreme exemplar of your point, like the plague.
Disagree on Seinfeld, but that's a matter of taste, I imagine. Or perhaps your lack of a sense of humor. :P
Re fancy restaurants, um, the point of going out to eat is tastiness, not health. If I wanted a soy-cheese on whole-wheat sandwich, I'd make it at home. If I'm going out to eat, I want something that took six trained professionals three days to make, with four sauces and an intricate garnish on top. Clearly you've entirely missed the point about fancy food.
I sorta disagree about core curricula. The point isn't to teach people facts they'll remember when they're 30, it's to teach them skills they'll remember when they're 30. If you make everyone write essays, read critically, and understand basic statistics, everything else is secondary. Core curricula is one way, but perhaps not the best way, to make sure everyone does have the basic skills.
Posted by: Harlan | Nov 26, 2007 8:28:12 AM
Great list, yes. Shakespeare overrated? No way. Dan Brown being swooned over in 400 years by future word geeks? Not a chance.
Posted by: inward invite | Nov 26, 2007 9:07:11 AM
I think I love you, save for your views on Shakespeare and private schools.
Posted by: Jordan T-H | Nov 26, 2007 9:19:43 AM
Dead on.
The comments above defending Shakespeare are just fantastic.
Posted by: Bjorn | Nov 26, 2007 9:47:28 AM
Sigh.. A paean to philistinism indeed. One shudders to have to defend Shakespeare as more than Dan Brown or the importance of Churchill as a world historical figure or the discipline of linguistics and the significance of Chomsky. So I won't. But what the hell is a serious blog like 3QD doing publishing small small-minded, anti-intellectual, and childish tripe? This is the kind of thing that bratty freshmen turn into their composition teachers. Shame on whatever impish twerp wrote this. And shame on 3QD for publishing it.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 26, 2007 10:21:01 AM
Leaders: You don't think Bubba Clinton is overrated? How about Jimmy Carter? JFK? Kofi Annan?
Political movements: economic populism. Agree on this one.
Political issues: Agreed. Opposition to Israel from the western 'Left' is usually a cover for their anti-Jewishness.
Music: Elvis Presley. Even Britney Spears is less flashy and more talented. You trying to suck up to Spike Lee here?
Television: Only idiots or those with nothing better to do spend their time watching television. Read a book!
Food: Generally, you get what you pay for. If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
Books: political advocacy. The 'cut out bin' in any major book store is loaded with this crap.
Academics: Private schools - Yes, but the price is high for a reason - parents who love their children will do anything to shelter them from the destructive habits of the left half of the bell curve.
Posted by: Alec Costandinos | Nov 26, 2007 10:21:35 AM
Alon make Shelley sad. And ironcially, I just mentioned today that I wished you would start blogging again. :/
Posted by: Shelley Batts | Nov 26, 2007 10:30:13 AM
SCREAM!!!! :)
Posted by: Dave Bacon | Nov 26, 2007 10:39:14 AM
Alon, you are grafting the aesthetics of Facebook onto a framework that is bound to be wrong for them -- as you must know, since you confess to having written this for Facebook, sensing perhaps that this is not a stand-alone list one offers up without a big, big caveat, and Facebook is a big one. I know from other posts that you are smart enough not to want -- really -- to set Shakespeare, Amartya Sen and Elvis Presley against Dan Brown and Britney Spears. You come down hard on certain disciplines for lack of rigor, but it's infectious, is it not? Unless you crave being known as a Facebook Intellectual -- and one who outed himself -- I suggest you dig your brains out of storage and commit to giving your readers a post worth their time.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 26, 2007 11:36:42 AM
you forgot
"Intellectual: pretending that by taking a dispassionate whine against people and movements that are working to improve the lives of millions upon millions of people like is happening in Venezuela, while complimenting scum like Milton Friendman is somehow intellectually superior enough to pick out what is 'overrated.' Or run-on sentences."
You wrote "Whose economic prescriptions didn't actually cause famine, but came fairly close to that in Chile." They rounded up the undesirables into a sports stadium and murdered them. I believe the proper response for someone who applauds that is "go fuck yourself."
Posted by: history is a weapon | Nov 26, 2007 11:55:14 AM
For all of you who are defending the idea that Shakespeare is overrated: how many of his plays have you actually read? Which ones? How carefully? Did you skim it for a paper in high school, or did you read it for enjoyment? Maybe I'll be surprised by the responses if anyone responds, but I'm guessing the answers will be: not very many, the most famous ones, not very, the former.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 26, 2007 11:57:03 AM
A recycled musing worthy of a holiday week; no harm done, but well below grade. Consider flood insurance.
Posted by: jb | Nov 26, 2007 12:01:08 PM
This list is perfectly awful. I would comment further, but I think it's pretty obvious why it's pure garbage.
However, Alec Costandinos also wrote: "Opposition to Israel from the western 'Left' is usually a cover for their anti-Jewishness." No, opposition to Israel is NOT anti-Jewishness. It is anti-zionism, anti-colonialism, anti-hypocrisy, etc. People who ascribe it to anti-semitism (or anti-"Jewishness") are only part of the problem. Anyway, that's not even what Alon was talking about (although I still think he's wrong).
Posted by: anna | Nov 26, 2007 12:08:00 PM
not very many, the most famous ones, I took my time, the later.
But I've seen all his movies!
Wife and I, we happy few, once watching Fishburn's Othello:
She make me laugh.
Posted by: Carlos | Nov 26, 2007 12:14:46 PM
Alon,
This is an excellent list just for the virtue of shitting on Seinfeld, which is truly an awful show. It feels refreshing just to hear someone say this.
I disagree with you on a few things. Sen and Friedman aren't overrated; agree or disagree with them, they're pretty important. And Sen isn't really in the business of policy perscription, so your comment isn't that fair.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I agree it does get too much attention in America, but that's simply because there is no other repressive criminal government in the world that has as many staunch and influential mindless dogmatic defenders in America as Israel. As a Palestinian, I would be much happier if the whole conflict got as much attention as Myanmar, so long as America treats Israel's government the same way it treats Myanmar's government.
Posted by: saifedean | Nov 26, 2007 12:21:54 PM
Mr. Anonymous hits the nail on the head. Actually reading Shakespeare, like actually considering Churchill's leadership of Blitz-era London, or Chomsky's role in establishing the conceptual basis for modern linguistics, and so on and on, would actually take effort and consideration. Taking a blunt swipe at all of them as "overrated" however is as easy sitting down to type on a lazy Sunday evening.
The result is more than just childish. It is the kind of lazy anti-intellectualism and know-nothingness that websites like 3QD are designed to oppose.
With all due respect to my friends Robin and Abbas, I do wonder whether it is a good thing to give a free pass to anyone you happen to know from Columbia to publish whatever tripe falls off their keyboard.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 26, 2007 12:22:59 PM
I don't trust people that spend time on facebook
Posted by: pamela | Nov 26, 2007 12:42:31 PM
Alon, Dan Brown will only be profound in an idiocracy...it seems like you're already there.
Posted by: anechoic | Nov 26, 2007 1:01:54 PM
You should add 'excessively negative people' to that list
Posted by: B | Nov 26, 2007 1:31:00 PM
As most others have said, the Shakespeare one is just silly--would you really argue that Dan Brown's characters have the same psychological depth as Shakespeare's, or that any phrases from Brown will be remembered or incorporated into ordinary speech the way so many of Shakespeare's have?
But a lot of the others are pretty defensible. For example, a few people in the comments have acted as though the Churchill one was obviously wrong, but although Churchill was certainly a historically important leader who made a lot of stirring speeches that inspired his people (the same can be said of Hitler), his actual competence as a military and political decision-maker is debatable--see this article from the New York Review of Books.
Chomsky's grammar may be a good classification scheme for languages, but evaluating it as an actual scientific theory, the evidence for an innate grammar is pretty weak, definitely "overrated" in that sense.
Israel/Palestine is probably emphasized for the same reason that South Africa's Apartheid was emphasized--because we're dealing with a Western democracy that is "like us" in some sense and so people feel more responsible for its injustices, and feel that the country's citizens and leaders might be more open to persuasion, than a nonwestern dictatorship. But in terms of actual number of people affected, I agree, there are other conflicts we should be paying more attention to. Thinking of the relative importance of different global problems in terms the number of people affected often gets a bad rap as a slightly inhuman or autistic approach to politics, and I guess it's unrealistic in the sense of not taking into account normal human psychology, but the world might be better off if we tried to suppress our tendency to pay attention to more "dramatic" issues and approach politics in a more Spock-like way. By the same standard, "terrorism" is vastly overrated--in the U.S. we have around 40,000 automobile fatalities every year, you'd need a WTC-level terrorist incident every month to even come close.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Nov 26, 2007 1:41:17 PM
Oooh, way to raise some hackles on a sleepy Monday after a holiday weekend! I agree with many of your points, but I don't think anyone will be reading Dan Brown in 50 years, much less 500.
Posted by: Marilyn Terrell | Nov 26, 2007 2:02:08 PM
Overrated Visual Artist? Too long a list? Too damned subjective to even bother?
Posted by: Jaime Morrison | Nov 26, 2007 2:14:28 PM
Ugh, well 2 of those I have no problem with at all.
Churchill should be condemned outright for giving Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. That was his idea.
Chomsky's views on linguistics have been shown time and again to be roughly as in accord with reality as his political views. Let's waste no more time on him.
Elvis v Britney? Come on! That's just choosing between turds.
None of the above.
Posted by: Szwagier | Nov 26, 2007 3:05:21 PM
How very predictable. Trying to provoke people for fun is pretty amateur stuff... And I am a fairly educated person but I would never dare pass judgment on so many different realms, from pop culture to high culture to esoteric academia all in one swoop!
I'll pick one for example: Israel/Palestine. Do you think that the Middle East has more effect on people here in the US or Myanmar does? Their priorities are pretty much where you would expect them to be.
Posted by: akatsuki | Nov 26, 2007 3:06:38 PM
I'll give you all of 'em, except Seinfeld.
Note that I particularly admire Sh're and Churchill, but agree that they're overrated -- you can be really, really good without meriting deification.
Posted by: Anderson | Nov 26, 2007 3:11:41 PM
The problem with columns like this is that allows ignorance to masquerade as "contrariness" and thus gives a platform for nonsense like:
"Chomsky's views on linguistics have been shown time and again to be roughly as in accord with reality as his political views. Let's waste no more time on him."
Really? Shown time and again by whom? You don't have to be a Chomskian to credit the man with almost single handedly inventing the modern discipline of linguistics. Even his harshest critics would grant him that.
What a sad day for 3QD this is.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 26, 2007 3:29:02 PM
Churchill should be condemned outright for giving Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. That was his idea.
Oh, come now. I think that the Red Army had a great deal more to do with it. For Churchill to "bargain away" what was already doomed ... how's that blamable?
Posted by: Anderson | Nov 26, 2007 3:54:49 PM
Literature: Shakespeare---
Could not agree more.
Evolutionary Psychology: It is a bit scary to confront Determinism and Sociobiology, so I will let you off on the "can't go there" fear.
I would add Post Modernism pablum to the list.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Nov 26, 2007 4:02:07 PM
Well, I've read all the comments now, and I think I see some differences among the commenters --
1.)Those giving serious consideration to whether Shakespeare, Chomsky and I/P affairs make too large a claim on the mental life of the Intelligentsia
2.)Those not considering same, either seriously or glancingly, but weighing in on Dan Brown
3.)Those reviling the sophomoric pretentiousness and utter lack of cogency in the post, signing their real names to their comments, hoping this isn't the Monday their ex-lover with an IQ of 170 decides to finally see what all the fuss is about and read 3QD
and, 4.) Other
Alon, I think this is your cue to tell everyone you were only trying to be provocative, that you didn't mean any of it, that the Facebook reference was a joke, that opposing Shakespeare and Dan Brown -- even writing a sentence which included both names -- was a joke, that you got inspired when, apres turkey, you watched "Manhattan" on Netflix and thought how dopey it was when Diane Keaton and Tony Roberts had that conversation about overrated geniuses and ticked off a few names like Van Gogh, and that the whole thing has actually come out about like you hoped, with many, many people weirded out and offended and let down. These being the people who can't take a joke, and who are misled by a few dropped mandarin names into believing that signifies serious discourse. Come on, Alon -- say it. I'll believe you.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 26, 2007 4:14:27 PM
“Look, Mom! I’m blogging! Watch me criticize everything!“
Aren’t there enough websites that feature mildly annoying people posting sophomoric stuff that would be mildly entertaining if you were three drinks into a cocktail party?
Posted by: Jeff S. | Nov 26, 2007 4:25:21 PM
Political Movements: 'new atheism'; at least it's happening finally...and that's not a bad thing
Linguistics: That is how all lanuages evolve.
Evolutionary Psychology: I strongly disagree with you here. EP is an evidence based science with a large potential to medical help. I don't care what any politician says, cognitive sciences are poised to change modern medicine.
Popular science: Science blogs can be fun, they are not textbooks, so screaming is allowed.
Music: Oh c'mmon!
Television: Seinfeld rocks!
Academics: If the global education systems followed your logic, we would have no innovation. No nanotechnology, no string theory, no biotech etc etc
BTW, add one more thing to your list: Ironical lists written by web bloggers under the pretense of being serious
Posted by: Abhishek B | Nov 26, 2007 4:41:37 PM
B,
Thank you for the very poignant Calvin & Hobbes reference. That made me smile, in an otherwise humourless, self-important, forced-and-yet-ironically-detatched thread.
Posted by: Damien | Nov 26, 2007 4:58:19 PM
However, Alec Costandinos also wrote: "Opposition to Israel from the western 'Left' is usually a cover for their anti-Jewishness." No, opposition to Israel is NOT anti-Jewishness. It is anti-zionism, anti-colonialism, anti-hypocrisy, etc. People who ascribe it to anti-semitism (or anti-"Jewishness") are only part of the problem. Anyway, that's not even what Alon was talking about (although I still think he's wrong).
Yes Anna, and I suppose 'some of your best friends are Jewish'?
Posted by: Alec Costandinos | Nov 26, 2007 4:59:18 PM
This has to be a classic as Dumbest Post in Decades, on or off the Net.
Posted by: fred lapides | Nov 26, 2007 5:12:00 PM
Mr. Levy, with his usual lack of attention to detail, fails to provide the real reason why the Israel/Palestinian conflict gets more attention then the other conflicts he mentions. That, of course, is because the Middle East contains most of the worlds proven oil reserves and the Israel/Palestinian problem is perceived to threaten access to those supplies. In other words, its about oil. The other conflicts mentioned by Mr. Levy don't involve threats to the worlds' oil supplies and are hence seen as of far lesser importance. If the Middle East had no oil, the Israel/Palestinian issues would have been resolved decades ago as the rest of the world would not have cared less.
Re Saifedean
Mr. Saifedeans' comparison of the State of Israel to Myanmar is absolutely outrageous. However, it is not surprising coming from him who is on the record as rejecting a two state solution stating that the State of Israel should be abolished. I have a flash for Mr. Saifedean, it ain't going to happen. Period, end of story.
Posted by: SLC | Nov 26, 2007 5:13:01 PM
wow -- how perfectly inane. some award is surely in order...
Posted by: ed | Nov 26, 2007 6:20:34 PM
Perfectly awful. A horrible attempt at ... God knows what. Please never do this kind of thing again at 3QD.
Posted by: Ed Rush | Nov 26, 2007 8:11:51 PM
Re Churchill
Mr. Levys' dismissal of Churchill demonstrates his total ignorance of history. Far from being overrated, Churchill was, if anything, underrated. He was the most vocal commentator on the thesis that one could not do business with Hitler. If Churchill had been in charge in 1938, the Munich agreement would never have been signed, Hitlers' bluff would have been called (and that's all it was at the time, a bluff) and, as Walter Gorelick stated in his book on the German General Staff, it is quite possible that Hitler would have been ousted in a coup by that General Staff and WW 2 avoided.
Posted by: SLC | Nov 26, 2007 8:12:53 PM
a list of provocations and inanity. Please, 3QD, don't take the blog in this direction.
Posted by: micahN | Nov 26, 2007 8:32:57 PM
SLC, the fact that someone was right about one important thing (Hitler), and that in an alternate history where other people had listened to them things would have turned out much better, is not alone sufficient to justify "rating" someone highly. Did you check out the New York Review of Books article I posted earlier?
Posted by: Jesse M. | Nov 26, 2007 8:55:50 PM
wait...what's wrong with being a facebook intellectual? at my PoMo residential liberal arts hippie college, facebook intellectual ranks second among the most desired careers for recent graduates.
it came in just ahead of whiny, self-loathing blogger and sliiightly behind faculty member at PoMo residential liberal arts hippie college.
(really though, the chomsky observation has a lot of truth to it. at least in philosophy of language, it's pretty much disciplinary dogma. not a tenet, not a prevailing theoretical position...dogma. i don't know about you, but dogmatic philosophers scare the shit out of me.)
Posted by: doug | Nov 26, 2007 10:15:12 PM
Re Jesse M
I just read some of the NYROBs article and it is certainly interesting in pointing out some of Churchills' mistakes and misjudgments. However, I would take strong exception to Mr. Jesse Ms' claim that Churchill was only right about one thing. Just to give 3 examples from WW 1 when Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty.
1. It was a masterstroke to bring Fisher out of retirement and make him once again First Sea Lord. Clearly, as evidenced by the disaster at Coronel, his successors therein were incompetent.
2. Churchill was absolute correct in his pushing for a combined navel/land attack on the heights above the Dardanelles. Had as few as 2 army divisions been available to occupy the forts above the Dardanelles as a part of the initial navel bombardment, it is quite possible that Turkey would have been forced out of the war. This would have opened the Dardanelles to British shipping which, by shipping munitions to Russia might have prevented the collapse of the Russian army in 1917 and lead to an allied victory that year. Unfortunately, the British Army high command refused to supply the necessary troops at the time of the initial navel assault which, by alerting the Turks to the threat led to the disaster on the Gallipoli Peninsula
3. Churchill was instrumental in starting the development of the tank which, as General Fuller as stated so well, returned mobility to the battlefield.
Posted by: SLC | Nov 26, 2007 10:43:37 PM
Wow,
I'm going to stick up for Alon here for a minute, and honestly say that I really don't understand why the hysteria and vitriol over this one little piece. This doesn't mean I agree with him on his views, but I will defend his right to trot them out on a blogpost.
My problem here is that the reaction this has illicited sounds eerily similar to what Alon would've gotten in a religious blog had he insulted God. Say what you want about Churchill, Shakespeare, Evolutionary Psychology, Sen, Friedman and Seinfeld, I don't think it's a crime or necessarily stupid to call any of them overrated. It's a viewpoint; it could be far-fetched, or ridiculous, and you may disagree, but surely expressing such a view is well within the limits of acceptable debate.
Yes, Alon was being provocative by taking on some very holy cows, but that doesn't really merit all the vitriol he has illicited here. Let's save the vitriol for really outrageous things, like the next time someone says Palestinian children don't necessarily deserve to die.
Posted by: saifedean | Nov 26, 2007 10:48:15 PM
I just read some of the NYROBs article and it is certainly interesting in pointing out some of Churchills' mistakes and misjudgments. However, I would take strong exception to Mr. Jesse Ms' claim that Churchill was only right about one thing.
I didn't actually mean to imply that, I just was saying that being right about that one thing was not sufficient (and I did use that word) to rule out the possibility of his being overrated, since in your comment it was the only thing you brought up in defense of his being "if anything, underrated". I'm sure he wasn't consistently wrong in all his military judgments, perhaps he did make some good ones, but my impression is that he was wrong a lot more often than better military minds at the time (and if you're going to bring up the first World War, you should take note that Churchill was responsible for the Dardanelles campaign, which was widely considered to be a complete disaster and led to Churchill's resignation). Likewise he was dead wrong on a lot of political issues, like his opinion of Gandhi and political independence for India--this page talks about Churchill's consistent animosity towards Gandhi (when Gandhi went on a hunger strike, Churchill hoped he would starve) and his consistent opposition to self--rule in India, and this page quotes him as saying:
"The truth is that Gandhi-ism and all it stands for will, sooner or later, have to be grappled with and finally crushed. It is no use trying to satisfy a tiger by feeding him with cat's-meat. The sooner this is realised, the less trouble and misfortune will there be for all concerned. Above all, it must be made plain that the British nation has no intention of relinquishing its mission in India, or of failing in its duty to the Indian masses, or of parting with its supreme control in any of the essentials of peace, order and good government. We have no intention of casting away that most truly bright and precious jewel in the crown of the King, which more than all our other Dominions and Dependencies constitutes the glory and strength of the British Empire. The loss of India would mark and consummate the downfall of the British Empire. That great organism would pass at a stroke out of life into history. From such a catastrophe there could be no recovery."
Posted by: Jesse M. | Nov 26, 2007 11:45:53 PM
Whoops, I wrote:
(and if you're going to bring up the first World War, you should take note that Churchill was responsible for the Dardanelles campaign, which was widely considered to be a complete disaster and led to Churchill's resignation)
...somehow without noticing that SLC did bring it up...sorry about that. I don't know if most historians would agree that the strategy was basically sound and that it was just the failure to provide enough troops that doomed the campaign, though.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Nov 26, 2007 11:48:49 PM
This blog post is a perfect idiot test.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 27, 2007 2:45:08 AM
I don't think the post was meant to be taken this seriously, people! Relax.
I disagree with most of the views in the post, except perhaps the one concerning elvis presley, although I I would have also added the Beatles to the that category.
Posted by: Nikolai Nikola | Nov 27, 2007 4:18:13 AM
So you have the spine to express your irrelevant opinions on Elvis -- no matter what you say, he has been far more influential than Britney Spears.
Posted by: Albert Meier | Nov 27, 2007 5:20:42 AM
"overrated" and "underrated" are more judgments about intrinsic quality than historical importance or influence, I think. So, acknowledging that Elvis had a huge influence doesn't mean you can't also think he's completely overrated as an artist.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Nov 27, 2007 5:43:21 AM
I don't know if most historians would agree that the strategy was basically sound and that it was just the failure to provide enough troops that doomed the campaign, though.
"Most" historians assume, along with Kitchener, that the Western Front was decisive and that anything elsewhere was a sideshow. Which only goes to show their deplorable grasp of grand strategy.
The best objection I've seen is that Churchill's plan underrated the Turks, and that even a surprise seizure of Constantinople wouldn't have thrown Turkey out of the war - you might have had their nationalist revival earlier, under the impetus of infidel invasion.
But against the tremendous potential of keeping Russia in the war, going on the defensive in the West, and sparing the Allies the Somme, 4th Ypres, etc., it was certainly worth giving it a good try, which Churchill's colleagues wouldn't do.
(Note that while I admire Churchill, I agree he's overrated - he gets treated as the master statesman of the 20th century if not all time, which is simply too much. I would put FDR above him, for instance.)
Posted by: Anderson | Nov 27, 2007 9:13:30 AM
Re Jesse M
1. It wasn't a question of not supplying enough troops. It was a question of supplying no troops, leaving the whole exercise as a navel bombardment. Apparently, he had an exaggerated opinion of the efficacy of navel gunfire, just as latter day bomber enthusiasts have an much exaggerated opinion of the efficacy of strategic bombing campaigns.
2. I would agree that Churchill was wrong to approve the navel bombardment alone after the troop allocation was rejected. As it turned out, the bombardment did silence the guns of the forts; the damage done to the British fleet was accomplished by mines. However, without occupying the forts, the silencing could only be temporary.
Re Anderson
Given the weakness of the Ottoman Government in Turkey at the time, for which Turkey was known as the sick man of Europe, it is quite possible that a successful operation would have led to a collapse of that Government and Turkeys' exit from the war. At any rate, Mr. Anderson is absolutely correct that a combined land/navel operation on Turkey carried much more promise then the slaughter on the Somme or the horror of Ypres.
Posted by: SLC | Nov 27, 2007 9:56:32 AM
Isn't there something about "making a (use superlative here) of all time" list when you've run out of ideas? On one publication that I worked with it was a common space filling tactic. Lists always take up more page space than straight, paragraphed prose- all that bulleting and space eating formatting. The hack in me approves.
Second frivolous point; something can be truly good and over-rated. It's inevitable when one speaks in loosely defined superlatives; it goes with the territory.
Third even more frivolous point; there are a few of Alon's judgments that I agree with but a future where people still read Dan Brown and listen to Britney Spears- that's real scary! However, he sure filled up the comment box.
Lastly; so what about a list of the most under-rated things?
Not to get all "rose on a slag-heap" about it but anyone can kvetch about the things they hate. I keep coming back to 3QD not just to read the latest stuff about intrinsically cool stuff (and important, serious things too)but because it's so much about people digging around in things they, dare I say it, love. Know what I'm sayin'?
Posted by: Pete Chapman | Nov 27, 2007 12:12:56 PM
Such is the case for me, Jesse.
I can acknowledge Elvis Presley's success yet, does that necessarily mean I enjoy his music?
I just think that opinions should have some tangibility to them before they are expressed.
"So you don't like Elvis or Britney? You should. They allow you to be nonconformist!"
Posted by: Albert Meier | Nov 27, 2007 1:42:52 PM
You forgot the WNBA.
Posted by: Headhunter | Nov 27, 2007 2:19:02 PM
Mr. Levy's comments on Peter Singer show an incredible lack of depth or understanding of the history of applied ethics. Contrary to what Mr. Levy appears to believe, an idea need not be complex to be interesting, influential, or life-changing. Mr. Singer's ideas of personhood (largely based on Jeremy Bentham and Derek Parfitt) and their application to animal rights (his own, enormous contribution) are discussed in literally every philosophy program in the United States. Literally. Likewise, his views on the ethical ramifications of poverty and our lack-of-response--most notable, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"--were and are hugely influential works that largely have little legitimate criticism even today. Most of the criticism is of the Thomas Nagel, "this is clearly unsatisfactory"-type--meaning that the author doesn't like that the conclusions oblige him to change his life but cannot justify not doing so, other than saying it is "unsatisfactory."
It's unfortunate that Mr. Levy feels a need to opine about subjects he is not expert in nor minimally understands, especially in such an otherwise well-regarded forum as 3QD.
-m.
Posted by: mario | Nov 27, 2007 3:49:32 PM
Thank you Mario for pointing this out. I had spent enough time addressing the callow and silly comments about Shakespeare and Chomsky that I forgot that Singer was also included. But you are of course entirely correct about Singer's place in twentieth-century philosophy in general and ethics in particular.
Isn't there something intrinsically debasing about even having to say this? Were this just some undergraduate chat room it would be better to let it go, but this is after all an intellectual blog.
I think Abbas and Robin have pretty much voted with silence on this one, since they usually rise to the defense of columns they think are worth defending. Again, perhaps it's time to take back the blank check offered to anyone with a Columbia connection.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 27, 2007 4:26:36 PM
Is this really serious? If it is, you should do a little research about Lula before saying that he is moderate and helps the poor.
He desrespects democracy in many ways and his government is very corrupt.
Posted by: fe | Nov 27, 2007 8:09:53 PM
Alec Costandinos | Nov 26, 2007 4:59:18 PM wrote:
"Yes Anna, and I suppose 'some of your best friends are Jewish'?"
I am Jewish, as is my family, and as are a number of my friends. If you would like to meet more Jews who think like me, email me, I would be happy to point you to more resources.
Posted by: Anna | Nov 27, 2007 11:23:56 PM
Levy obviously posted a polemic. He spelt it out for you:
"I wrote this note on Facebook while feeling somewhat contrarian. My rule here is that everything has to have a large number of defenders, and as small as possible a number of detractors."
As I stated earlier, Levy should seriously consider adding 'excessively negative people' to his list.
To safedean:
You're on target. I'd get reactions similar to the ones here if I posted quotes from "On the Genealogy of Morality" to, say, 'Focus on the Family' forums. Actually...I think I've found a new hobby :)
Posted by: B | Nov 28, 2007 6:28:35 AM
B,
The list was "excessively negative." The people who attacked the list were being positive.
So there.
Posted by: B + 1 | Nov 28, 2007 10:15:46 AM
Is this some sort of flat-earth society koan to make us ponder the subjectivity of truth and aesthetics and such? Or are you just being a prat?
Posted by: zen | Nov 28, 2007 12:41:04 PM
While skimming through the list, my mind read "fleshy" for "flashy" on Britney vs. Elvis. Which, come to think of it, is also true.
Posted by: peggy | Nov 30, 2007 3:54:12 PM
Japonya'da Kyoto Üniversitesi'nde 1'den 9'a sayıların öğretildiği 5 yaşlarında 3 şempanze ile 12 gönüllüye.
Posted by: oyunlar1 | Dec 4, 2007 1:54:46 AM
Post a comment