This past weekend in Chicago 32 people were shot and 6 killed (See the CNN story here). Police Superintendent Weis cited an excess of guns and gangs as a possible explanation. And while there is a link between violence and guns and gangs, the local police overlooked a simpler explanation: THE APA CENTRAL WAS IN TOWN!
Philosophers notoriously question authority, perhaps even the authority of a gang to enforce its turf. We also love protesting things--especially war. But don't let our disdain for the war in Iraq fool you, we object to all kinds of things. Some of us even deny that streets exist. Others may even relegate colors to secand-class ontological citizenship, thus placing no importance on what colors it is appropriate to wear when. So, which is more likely, that an eliminativist questioned the very existence of some street demarcating one gang's turf from another gang's thus provoking retaliation or that some gang got involved in the usual inter-gangland dispute resulting in an unusual spike in violence for no reason? I think it's obvious.
I'm going to file this away in my mind under the title "Interesting Corroborations" and pull it out whenever philosophers get labelled peace-lovers. By the way, I'm a peace lover. All my colors are neutral and I like no street of Chicago any better than any other. That is, unless your turf is one such street, in which case I like it the best.

