Published in the academic journal CTheory online at http://ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=742

This article will have succeeded in achieving its purpose to the extent that it accurately accounts for the occasion of its writing. It is not written to prove or argue a point, to uncover new evidence, to elaborate a new theory, or even to intervene in any ongoing conversation concerning music, ordinary language philosophy, aesthetics, or any other current topic of which I am aware. This writing aspires to the condition of philosophy in the sense that it seeks to articulate the conditions that underlie its production. More specifically, the writing is occasioned by an intuition responding to a particular song, and its purpose is, to paraphrase Emerson, to suggest a tuition for that intuition; in other words, to test the validity of the intuition by outlining terms of criticism for what may be heard in the song. 

Since first encountering Blood Meridian several years ago I have held the intuition that it is a characteristically American work, and that the depicted violence allows the reader to learn something about American violence. My purpose here is to provide some mere suggestions regarding what there is to learn in this regard.

Is Wittgenstein’s later philosophy – as epitomized in the Philosophical Investigations (referred to as “PI”) – a philosophy of conservatism? Or, stated less academically and more usefully: Does Wittgenstein’s later philosophy teach anything of value to people who are not inclined toward political conservatism?

Originally published at http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/13/was-wittgenstein-a-conservative/

How "exclusive use of inside wiring" clauses in cable ROE agreements circumvent FCC rules and policies favoring video competition at MDU properties.

...if someone has nothing to hide, then it’s OK for the government to snoop. It’s an interesting notion because the underlying assumption is that only those with something to hide have anything like “privacy” in the first place – and it’s OK to violate the privacy of a sneak because if you have something to hide, you’re guilty of something, and justice demands that the guilty be exposed and punished. In other words, the assumption is that privacy implies secrecy and secrecy implies guilt. So to the extent that privacy exists at all, it’s not legitimate.

Cormac McCarthy is a self-styled late-comer to American literature. He writes as if nothing in the literary world has happened since William Faulkner passed, or perhaps since Herman Melville completed Moby Dick. Like most if not all of the central characters in his novels, the authorial image McCarthy projects through his work is that of a solitary stranger in the post-modern world, uninterested in publicity, politics, awards or memoires; he positions himself as the last of the great modernists, a fashioner of myths and a believer in masterpieces. McCarthy resolutely allows his work to speak for itself, and based on the publically available evidence it’s no concern of his whether the public chooses to listen or not.

Several months ago the FCC launched a Notice of Inquiry concerning whether the definition of “Multi-channel Video Programming Distributor” or “MVPD” should be expanded to include online video distributors (“OVDs”) such as Netflix. That action was prompted by Sky Angel’s attempt to file a program access complaint with the FCC. To date, however, the FCC has done nothing more than receive comments from the public.