something about "On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt

Frankfurt begins this meditation on bullshit by examining the definition offered in Max Black's 1985 essay, "The Prevalence of Humbug": bullshit is the "deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody's own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes." Frankfurt gets his footing here, but says this definition fails to adequately capture "the essential character of bullshit." Frankfurt next mines a few bullshit-related anecdotes and quotes to uncover his theoretical understanding of bullshit. The somewhat oversimplified synopsis of that understanding is that what is essential about bullshit is that (1) the bullshitter cares not for what is true or false, like the liar and the honest man (in fact, the bullshitter could be saying things that are more or less true and still be bullshitting) and (2) the bullshitter says whatever suits him at the moment in an attempt to deceive his audience about what he is up to and who he is.

The prose in "On Bullshit" is crisp and graciously plain; Frankfurt's essay, an exploratory philosophical analysis, manages to avoid philosophy jargon and name dropping.

Note: This is good:

One who is concerned to report or to conceal the facts assumes that there are indeed facts that are in some way both determinate and knowable. His interest in telling the truth or in lying presupposes  that there is a difference between getting things wrong and getting them right, and that it is at least occasionally possible to tell the difference. Someone who ceases to believe in the possibility of identifying certain statements as true and others as false can  have only two alternatives. The first is to desist both from efforts to tell the truth and from efforts to deceive. This would mean refraining from making any assertion whatever about the facts. The second alternative is to continue making assertions that purport to describe the way things are but that cannot be anything except bullshit.

Popcorn

Statistic-oriented articles about population surface fairly often but in the lead up to this summer's release of the 2010 census data we find more articles like this CBS piece "Minorities make up majority of U.S. babies". This story emphasizes a statistic showing most people over 65 are white but minorities are having the most kids and makeup the majority of the population under age two. According to the article, this demographic shift begs us to worry for our future.

First quoted is Laura Speer of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, an organization aiming to help disadvantaged children. She says,

It's clear the younger generation is very demographically different from the elderly, something to keep in mind as politics plays out on how programs for the elderly get supported ... It's critical that children are able to grow to compete internationally and keep state economies rolling.

Although the article writer focuses on race, the stakes here are very much rooted in class and economic concerns, as Speer alludes to so deftly. But race makes for a more attractive story angle. The rise of black single mothers is another focal point for the article.

The final word goes to Tony Perkins, president of the conservative interest group Family Research Council who "emphasized the economic impact of the decline of traditional families, noting that single-parent families are often the most dependent on government assistance." In his words:

The decline of the traditional family will have to correct itself if we are to continue as a society ... We don't need another dose of big government, but a new Hippocratic oath of "do no harm" that doesn't interfere with family formation or seek to redefine family.

That quote is loaded. To be non-traditional--often the result of personal irresponsibility, it seems--is to be poor and a threat to society's existence. The article offers no alternative political point of view.