New UTA WiFi service!

UTA, the Utah Transit Authority, tested a program beginning in 2006 that permitted commuters on select express buses WiFi access. The pilot program was so successful that they recently expanded the WiFi service to all express buses from Logan to Provo.

In fact, I'm on a UTA express bus headed for Ogden at this moment.

The "crossroads"

The blues has lots of legends. Perhaps the most well-known legend occurred at a place called the "crossroads." The location of the crossroads is just outside of Clarksdale, Mississippi where the old U.S. Highway 49 meets old U.S. Highway 61.

As legend has it, Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil for his ability to play the guitar. Of course his deal made him "King of the Delta Blues." Johnson, according to legend, happened to sell his soul to the devil where U.S. 49 and U.S. 61 merge (not intersect in the traditional sense).

Some have disputed the account. Naysayers have suggested the deal went down at the intersection of MS 8 and MS 1. Other naysayers have claimed that the deal took place near the Leo's Market in Rosedale (the location was immortalized by the tune "Traveling Riverside Blues" which was re-made by Cream and entitled "Crossroads").

I traveled the area in the summer of 2001 stopping at juke joints from Vicksburg to Clarksdale. It was quite an experience! Now, I'm heading back in a few weeks. I'm probably going to stay in the Riverside Hotel (where Ike Turner wrote "Rocket 88" and Bessie Smith died after her traffic accident in 1938, the Riverside was G.T. Thomas Hospital then) or the Shack Up Inn (on Clarksdale's outskirts).

The job market's got me in a nasty funk and I've gotta get back to my roots!

The importance of checking your child's homework

The image has been circulating around the internet.

New Blog on gender, race, and philosophy

New blog is available here on gender, race, and philosophy. Many great philosophers are on the list of authors. I hope to see some posts from them.

The "side car," malt beverages, and warm beer

Before I leave the area, I'd like to publish a few posts on the state of Utah. By "state", I mean what Utah is like (and not necessarily about the confines of the artificial geographic boundary). Topics will probably include polygamy, liquor laws, and the LDS Church, i.e., Mormonism. The following post tackles liquor laws. Honestly - I've never had a problem with Utah's liquor laws. I'm not a heavy drinker, and I don't spend much time at bars. Admittedly, the laws are strange and they should be revised (but not in the way the legislature is proposing).

This is a short post on liquor laws and the proposed changes the legislature is considering (see the Trib's article here for more info; for a slightly more jaded version see the Deseret News article here).

Utah state liquor laws are strange. They are a remnant of prohibition. First, here are some of the laws: (1) only licensed establishments may serve alcoholic beverages for consumption on its premises which must be located at some defined minimum distance from schools, churches, and other institutions; (2) liquor must be dispensed by metered plumbing and is restricted to one ounce per serving (absolutely no doubles); (3) patrons cannot be served more than one drink at a time; (4) a patron must have fully consumed his drink before another one may be served; (5) establishments classified as "restaurants" cannot serve alcohol to patrons who do not order food (designated "meals"); (6) establishments classified as "private clubs" must be non-profit organizations, must charge a membership fee (minimum $4), and are prohibited from advertising to increase membership levels; (6a) members of private clubs may "sponsor" up to 7 guests and sponsors must have a "pre-existing relationship" with his/her guests.

These represent just a sample of Utah's strange liquor laws. Someone might point out that I've forgotten one really strange law. The strange law is that you can only have one drink in front of you at a time. That law was overruled recently (circa 2003). The rule has been changed. Patrons at a private club are permitted to have two drinks of "spirituous liquor" (and a beer or a glass of wine) in front of you at the same time. In a restaurant, the rule is that patrons can only have one "spiritous liquor" drink and one beer or one glass of wine in front of them at a time.

When Jon Hunstman ran for governor, one of his initiatives was to "normalize" state liquor laws. His first effort to change the liquor laws in 2005 were thwarted by legislators. Very recently, a new move is under way to change the state's liquor laws. The new move threatens the use of a "sidecar." A "sidecar" is what patrons receive in place of a double shot. The patron receives 1oz. shot in a mixed drink (of up to 1.75oz. "flavoring) and orders a "side car" (a second shot) to make the drink a double. Of course the patron has to pour it.

New legislation would do away with the use of a "side car." The shot would be increased to 1.5oz., a standard shot everywhere else.

The new proposal doesn't come without a cost. The proposal has a few questionable riders. While the "side car" requirement will be taken away, two additions will be made to the liquor laws. First, grocery stores will be prohibited from selling "alcopops" (sweet malt beverages) because these beverages target an underage population. Second, grocery stores, convenience stores, and gas stations will be prohibited from selling cold beer. The legislature's theory is that people will not want to drink warm beer.

Dani Kauerz, of the U's Daily Utah Chronicle, opines on the second half of the rider (here).
She suggests that it wouldn't stop college students from drinking alcohol. As a matter of fact, she believes it'll increase alcohol consumption. She points out that students who play "drinking games" prefer warm beer since "you can chug warm beer faster than cold beer." Hooray! The state legislature now endorses drinking games on all Utah college campuses.

Second, I'm not sure the first rider will work either. "Alcopops," as they are called, weren't the preferred drink for young people I knew in high school. In fact, many young people steer clear of malt beverages because parents can smell the sweetness of the alcohol on a young person's breath pretty distinctly. Sweet it is, but it will unlikely detract youngsters - underage folks - from drinking.

If legislators - and Gov. Hunstman - really want to be like other parts of the country, then they should abandon their antiquated views of liquor laws. They should explore another state's liquor laws and adopt them for their own.

Where were you when I needed you?

I received a philosophy book catalog. As usual I skimmed it for recently published books in any of my areas of research interest.

The last two pages of the catalog show recently published works under the heading of "academic handbooks." One of them would have been a good guide to purchase a few months ago. The book is: Surviving Your Academic Job Hunt: Advice for Humanities PhDs by Kathryn Hume (available for purchase here).

With a name like "Hume," she's got to give great advice!

62nd Philosophy Carnival

Meaning More hosts the 62nd Philosophy Carnival (here). Among the more interesting posts are:

1. Buffalo's Lake-Effect Philosophy blog on Darwall, Empathy, and the Psychology of the Second Person. The brunt of this work will be presented at this year's MidSouth Philosophy Conference.
2. Thoughts Arguments and Rants post on "Oughts and Context"
3. Fides Quaerens Intellectum's post entitled "Who gives a tonk?"
   

Walking in Memphis

I received word moments ago that my paper was accepted for presentation at the 33rd annual MidSouth Philosophy Conference at the University of Memphis. Title and abstract below.

The MidSouth is typically well-attended and offers a variety of philosophy papers on a wide range of topics. What I like most about this conference is its breadth. I can go to a paper on Husserl at 9am and go to a paper on presentism at 11am. Some people might think the conference's diversity is a vice, but I believe it's a virtue.

I hope to see you in Memphis!

Action under a description: what the folk say

Accounts of act individuation have attempted to capture peoples' intuitions of how to distinguish between actions. Donald Davidson and G.E.M. Anscombe have argued that a multitude of action descriptions designate only one act, while Alvin Goldman has averred that each action description refers to a distinct act. Following on studies by Joshua Knobe and others about intentional action, I subject these accounts of action individuation to experimentation. The data indicate that people distinguish between actions differently depending on the valence of outcomes. Thus, the assumption that a single account of action individuation applies invariantly seems mistaken.