something i shouldn't care about at all but somehow do

My high school's marching band recently got new uniforms. The old uniforms were, granted, getting old, probably in the range of 15 years or so.

But getting new uniforms doesn't mean you have to start looking like every other marching band in the country. I mean, come on... the diagonal sash, the silly hat, a preponderance of black? Penncrest's marching band has, for the time I've known it, always stood out in uniform, music selection, drill, choreography, etc. You name it, and Penncrest probably did it differently from the majority of other bands out there. Now, it seems as if Penncrest just wants to out-Strath Haven Strath Haven.

A big part of this, I'm sure, is just me being grumpy and nostalgic for the good ol' days. But whatever happened to the desire to be distinctive?

automatic content extraction

Mark Liberman had a post yesterday over on Language Log about Automatic Content Extraction. I spent the past two summers doing ACE annotation, so I know all about the metonymy issues he discusses.

What's worthy to note, however, is that, as an annotation group, we (I include myself, since I still occasionally go into the LDC and work a few hours) have been moving away from the explicit tagging of metonymy, largely due to the argument of Christopher Walker that it doesn't occur nearly as often as previously guidelines have suggested. Instead, we've been moving in the direction of tagging solely the "intended" referent, rather than the "literal" one, on the grounds that it's the former that actually matters.

andreotti, free again

Just under a year ago, former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti was convicted of complicity the murder of a journalist in the late 1970s. Now, according to La Repubblica, he's been declared innocent. My Italian's a bit rusty, but the gist of it seems to be that there wasn't sufficient proof of Andreotti's guilt in the matter. I don't know the details of the case (or of Italian criminal law, for that matter) to make a truly informed statement about this, but from what I have read, I'm pretty confident in saying that some of Andreotti's ties were less than reputable. Associating with alleged mafiosi isn't itself a crime, of course, but considering the levels of corruption associated with the Christian Democratic party that Andreotti headed for so long, it seems pretty likely that Andreotti engaged in some illegal activity in his day.

This should come as no surprise if you know anything about Italian politics, but the overturning of the guilty verdict really has no effect. Andreotti, you see, was exempted from actually serving his sentence on account of his age.

what is soul music, anyway?

Don't expect an answer to that question... I certainly can't answer it.

What I can do, however, is present some perspective on soul and R&B in the last fifty years. Perspective, sadly, that seems to be lacking in the Phoenix (Swarthmore College's newspaper)'s newest music writer.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a strong supporter of more music reviews in the Phoenix. To be honest, there's a limited amount of real news that concerns a school this small. And I'm always eager to hear about new music I otherwise wouldn't know about. That said, being a music writer requires a certain body of knowledge of long-term musical trends (one that I, by the way, don't have... '60s soul is about all I can speak with any authority about that, and even there my knowledge is far from comprehensive). Sadly, Brandy Monk-Payton, the music writer in question, seems to lack some of that knowledge. Either that or her writing's just unclear.

Some excerpts from her two latest articles:

Contemporary rhythm and blues music, beginning in the Motown era, has evolved through the decades into the slick genre of R&B. Some would say that rhythm and blues is no different from R&B. However, Al Green, Stevie Wonder and The Temptations are vastly separate entities from Ginuwine, Tyrese and B2K. Whatever your opinion of the genre, there is an artist that bridges the gap between the two styles. He is a man that can be as lyrically sensual as Al Green and as catchily beat-driven as B2K. He is "The 'R' in R&B" otherwise known as R. Kelly.

A few problems here: is Motown to be considered contemporary R&B? I certainly don't think of it that way. Just what is this putative difference between rhythm and blues and R&B? I mean, R&B means rhythm and blues.

But the real problem here is positing R. Kelly as the bridge between 1) Al Green, Stevie Wonder, and the Temptations and 2) Ginuwine, Tyrese and B2K. I don't know enough about contemporary R&B to evaluate the importance of R. Kelly. But I can tell you that Al Green, Stevie Wonder, and the Temptations are themselves vastly different entities. Unless you can point to some characteristics common to all three that were further developed by R. Kelly, I'm not sure exactly what R. Kelly did for R&B.

And from last week:

Since Elvis hit the scene in the late 1950s, blue-eyed soul has slowly emerged and established itself as another facet of R&B music. Elton John carried on the tradition most notably with 1973's "Benny [sic] and the Jets."

Again, several problems emerge. Elvis was many things, but he was definitely not a blue-eyed soul singer in the late 1950s (not the least because there wasn't even such a thing as soul music then). But the biggest inaccuracy is viewing the music of Elton John as a notable stop in the tradition of blue-eyed soul. Elton John. I'm not sure how to see John as anything but the quintessential pop artist of the 1970s. And "Bennie and the Jets"? Come on. If you want the epitome of blue-eyed soul, look no further than Dusty Springfield's absolutely essential Dusty in Memphis (sure, not everything on it is soul, but, good God, anything that has "Son of a Preacher Man" on it is essential listening).

Monk-Payton seems to know what she's talking about in terms of contemporary R&B artists. She'd be far better off sticking to that rather than reaching beyond her knowledge base and writing things that are just wrong.

A rather harsh condemnation, I know, but I'm a firm believer in only saying stuff that you have reason to believe is true. If you don't know something, that's fine. But if you're not sure about something, either find out about it, or don't talk about it.

I really don't mean to sound so snobby about this. I mean, come on, it's just music. But truth matters a bunch to me, and inaccuracies like this always bug me.

determiners providing discourse referents for future pronouns

While talking with Bill Ladusaw (ooh... look at me name drop. Albeit in a rather restricted context) about my linguistics thesis yesterday, he brought up the issue of whether nominal phrases with "a few" and "few" (the objects of my investigation) can serve as referents for future pronouns in the discourse. I told him I hadn't thought about discourse yet. His suggestion was that "a few" does, but "few" doesn't. A good observation, I thought, and definitely one I could incorporate into my thesis. But it sounded vaguely familiar somehow.

So I went back and looked in my journal from the summer. Sure enough, I had jotted down some examples of this very phenomenon:

1) A few Republicans oppose the tax cuts. They think they're welfare for the rich.
2) *Few Republicans oppose the tax cuts. They think they're welfare for the rich.

The asterisk, for those unfamiliar with the conventions of scholarly linguistics, indicates that the mini-discourse in 2) is somehow ungrammatical or, at the very least, bizarre.

Rather exciting to realize that I came up with the same non-trivial observation as one of the world's top semanticists. We'll just ignore the fact that I managed to forget it for 4 months...

UPDATE: To clarify a bit, 2) above is ungrammatical if "they" is meant to be co-referenced with "Few Republicans." A perfectly grammatical reading (and, indeed, the natural one) is "they" being co-referenced with those Republicans who don't oppose tax cuts. But since Republicans who support tax cuts are rather unlikely to think of them as welfare for the reach, this reading's rather bizarre, too.

philadelphia sports fans

Just finished watching the Eagles game (hey! They finally played reasonably well. At least from what I saw). The CBS announcers, like many sports commentators, just don't get Philadelphia fans. The complaint typically goes something like this:

"I just don't get Philadelphia fans. Why do they boo so much? You come to a game to have fun. There's just so much negative energy here. Why are they booing? I just don't get it!"

This is typically followed by some throwaway line about how, of course, it's the fans' right to boo.

What non-Philadelphians don't understand is that Philadelphia fans care about their teams. Not in the "Oh, Nowhereville Borings, you're so wonderful and make me so happy. I could never be angry with you" sense. Philadelphia fans are emotionally invested how their teams play. And emotion, positive and negative, gets vented somehow. When Philly fans are pissed off, they're going to boo. Not because they hate their team but because they fair.

For the record, when Michael Lewis picked off a Chad Pennington pass to definitively shift the momentum towards the Eagles, the crowd erupted in cheers. Because they care.

the mortara case in the news

For the new:
60 Minutes did a piece this past weekend on the recent canonizations and beatifications by John Paul II. Pope Pius IX was one of the beatifications. He was also the pope who endorsed the removal of six year-old Edgardo Mortara from his family on the (unproven) grounds that Edgardo had been baptized. 60 Minutes has a few quotations from Elena Mortara, Edgardo's great grandniece, who campaigned, unsuccessfully, against the beatification. My own read on Pius IX is that he was a stubborn, reactionary SOB* whose prime concern was preserving his own power.

And the old:
From the long-defunct Philadelphia Presbyterian, some good ol' 19th-century style anti-Catholicism. They certainly weren't lacking in vitriole, were they?

Popery in its march may trample on the most sacred rights of society; by the foulest means it must fill up its unholy communion... [a] more God-defying and man-oppressing system was never devised by Satan than this monstrous religion of Popery.

*This is a bit unfair. His papacy started off pretty well, what with him allowing the walls of the Jewish ghetto to be torn down and other liberal stuff like that. But after the short-lived Roman Republic of 1849-50, the above description pretty much fits.

an update

Sorry for the lack of recent posts. I spent the weekend in Ohio and now I'm catching up on my work. So it might be a few days before I have anything substantial to say here (not that I've had much of that recently anyway...)

not a real post

But new content nonetheless. I just finished up my seminar paper on critiques of Hans Baron's interpretation of civic humanism. Go ahead, read it if you'd like. Comments are always welcome, of course. Though I can't imagine that I have many people reading that care much about varying interpretations of Quattrocento humanism.

At some point I'll be putting up some older papers. In case, you know, you like what you see.

so wait... people should have sex without condoms?

The Vatican, internationally known for its vigorous and objective scientific research, has declared that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS. This in the face of the insistence of the World Health Organization that while condoms can break, there aren't "holes" in them big enough to allow HIV through them. You know the WHO, right? The branch of the UN whose job it is to worry about health around the world. Somehow the Catholic Church's primary mission strikes me as a bit different.

What's unfortunate is that there could be a kernel of truth to the Church's argument: if condoms make people feel invincible and increase promiscuity, it's entirely plausible that, due to condom breakage, rates of infection would also increase. But somehow I'm imagining that people are having sex around the world regardless of the availability of condoms. Besides, the solution to condom breakage shouldn't be declaring, "Don't use condoms!" Instead, there should an increased emphasis on correct usage of condoms, thus minimizing the rates of breakage.

Here's the Onion take on the Catholic position on contraception from a few years back.

well crap

After watching tonight's episode, I've reached the sad conclusion that The West Wing as we know it is gone forever. Never have I seen such a plethora of acting ability wasted on such bad dialogue and improbably plotlines.

God damn you, John Wells.

(Aaron Sorkin, please come back)

how about that?

A year or two ago, I received a number of e-mails supposedly from sports writers at the Inquirer and Daily News and Ed Wade (general manager of the Philadelphia Phillies) that bashed the management of the Phillies, They obviously weren't authentic (seeing as sports writers and general managers kinda have better things to do). It's been months since I've received any of them.

They caught the guy who was sending them out. Not many details in this story, but the case is in federal court, so he could end up going to jail for this.

See, here's the thing about Philadelphia fans. They're passionate. They cheer when they're happy, and they boo when they're pissed off. I wouldn't have it any other way. But sometimes they're just dumb. It's like the whole throwing batteries at J.D. Drew thing. Just not worth it. Just keep booing... it's just as fun.

date my last assignment is due: december 19th

Which basically means that I won't ever be stress-free until that day. This morning, I figured out that I'm going to have to spend at least six hours a day during October break working on my thesis and an upcoming seminar paper on civic humanism. I'm not complaining... it's great stuff and I love doing it. But the prospect of grinding through hours of work for the next two months is a bit daunting.

I am, however, leaving behind all work for the last three days of break. I hope to come back to it happy and refreshed.

I'm not quite sure why this entry was deemed blog-worthy, but here it is. If I have any more whiny posts the rest of the semester, please leave a comment telling me to suck it up and only post interesting things.

just the seed of an entry, as i have lots more to say but no time to write it

As much as I love music and the fact that probably 75% of my waking hours are spent listening to music at least passively, I've got to admit that I don't have the greatest ear for good music.

To be more precise, I tend to suck at judging a song or album on my first listen of it. I mean, obvious crap will stand out as such to me, but other than that, I only get very general impressions. I really need at least five listens before I really make a decision about an album. Two rules of thumb I use for determining whether it's good: 1) Did I notice new, interesting things this time through? 2) Do I want to listen to this again right now? Anything that gets a yes on both counts is pretty damn good in my book.

The latest in my discman: The Queen is Dead by the Smiths. I wish I could write lyrics that clever. Not that I write lyrics, but if I were to write lyrics, I hope they could be like that.

i do feel guilty about the binding falling apart each time i turn a page

My hands are both dirty and shiny right now. Paging through old newspapers will do that. How old, you ask? 145 years old. Hot damn.

Have I mentioned how much I love doing primary research?

Also, how on earth did people read (to say nothing of carrying around) newspapers that were practically three feet long and two feet wide? I'm not exaggerating. Well, at least not a lot...

Being in the archives prompted some thoughts on the production of history that I might write up later if they start cohering a bit more.

animals in captivity

From the department of shocking news, the New York Times reports that zoo animals' enclosures are too small and don't replicate the wild. I can't help but say... duh.

I mean, did anyone seriously believe that a zoo could ever provide, say, tigers, with an environment similar to that in the wild?

There's really not too much to be said here... for some animals, zoos are just never going to be able to reproduce the conditions outside of a zoo. Which is why this makes so little sense:

"There is a heroic effort afoot to create exhibitions so that zoological gardens can present animals with their complete behavioral repertoire," said Dr. Wharton, a biologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which runs both zoos.

These efforts include, for example, "a spinning ball scented with various odors and a 'tiger pull.'" I'm having a hard time imagining how a spinning ball mimics any sort of stimulation a tiger would have in the wild.

The real problem, as I see it, is that zoos have a myriad of functions that don't exactly mesh well together. Are they concerned with educating and entertaining their guests? Are they concerned with ensuring the health of their animals? Do they want to present the animals in as close to a natural habitat as possible? The answer to all these questions is "yes," of course. But you can't do them all, and certainly not in the limited space that most zoos have. Then there's the fact that many zoos (I'm generalizing from the Philadelphia Zoo, which may not be a typical case, but it's what I know) devote a considerable portion of their budget to conservation around the world.

I don't have any solutions to this. I'm not sure if anyone does, but if the NYT still finds it noteworthy that small cages are detrimental to some animals' health, it seems like we might be a long way off.