2025-11-09
HomeI realize I also use this article series as a mechanism to lay out my thoughts on something interesting I've come across, to myself, or to understand the material better. Don't take me sharing these links as an endorsement of them.
I also like it because it really makes me want to understand what I'm sharing. I would feel naughty to share something that I didn't at least understand to some degree.
Christopher Hitchens interview on the Clintons (1999)
Some useful context:
Admittedly, reading the wikipedia article paints a very muddy picture.
While it is unsavory, I'm not sure I would say these actions are totally disqualifying, but I can understand if one would treat it as such. I think I'm aligned with Charlie Rose here, I think.
I'm of mixed feelings about electing a lesser evil ... but I think one thing he and I would find agreement on is that we shouldn't debase ourselves to gather votes.
I find it so interesting that he does not want his affivadit to be used against a personal friend. It sounds like "I don't want to tell the truth if it harms a personal friend", because well, an affidavit is an assertion from your part of what is the truth, right?
Though I must state that Hitchens does not think Sidney committed perjury, so I suppose his affidavit would be used in pursuit of some non-crime. Then again, his affidavit could not correctly be used to show a crime, based on what Hitchens thinks Sidney did.
I was talking to a friend of mine and the topic of language considered as "language games" (a la Ludwig Wittgenstein). It was an interesting enough metaphor, and he recommended that I buy Wittgenstein's book "Philosophical Investigations".
Randomly, I came upon this video that goes a bit into it. I think it's quite delightful. I'm not such a fan of the CTA and I don't quite really get the "fly in the bottle" metaphor in an internalized way, but I liked the video enough to actually go ahead and buy the book!
One of my favorites. I think most would argue that the text is very explicit in its rejection of Fletcher's and Neiman's philosophy. However, I can't help that leave it and think "that's what I want", what Neiman has.
I mean, it's a bit silly right? Neiman seems to have achieved some level of self-actualization, and he's actually got nothing. He doesn't have the influence or talent or money or fame as his idols. But he couldn't be happier, in that moment.
Though in retrosect, it looks like it's a reaction to what Fletcher says. It's not very obvious what he's saying. I wouldn't be surprised if Chazelle told Simmons "just mouth some nonsense", but it's obvious Neiman is looking for Fletcher's approval.
Fuck!! Well, I just want the obessiveness that Neiman has.
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
I don't care so much for this. But I like the graph, that does appeal to me, and the illustrations are quite nice.
As I read it more and get past the obnoxious writing, into the more analytical aspects of it, I don't hate it so much. I'm still reading it.