A Reading from the Book of Irony (#2)

The prophet Herschel was out walking one day when his disciples came to him. "Oh great Herschel, we are concerned. The men who write newspaper columns have been saying you are full of shit."

Herschel replied, "Perhaps, but at first I was full of rich bread and fine cheese. Would it be better if I were a man of no substance whatsoever?"

This passage is among the more controversial attributed to the prophet Herschel. For one, the Herschel-as-Urdu scholars insist that "newspaper columns" should have been translated instead as "clay tablets", and that this would make things infinitely clearer. Other scholars contend that this would help not a jot.

Church leaders in general have been fairly ambivalent about the passage, which implies that all earthly wisdom is subject to gradual decay and putrefaction. In consequence, prominent officials have begun to speculate whether the prophet Herschel was not, in fact, a member of the church of irony at all, and have suggested that perhaps he slipped into the volume by way of a clever bit of copy-editing.

With regards to this, it should be noted that one of the prophet Herschel's few recorded prophecies was his prediction that the church would gradually disown all its prophets. Third-party theologians have gleefully observed that Herschel has got the church in a real pickle with that one.

A Reading from the Book of Irony

A wise man once came to the prophet Herschel and said, "O Herschel, the men who mumble in the bus station say you are a great thinker. What is the meaning of the life of the spirit?"

The prophet replied, "One thousand years in the barrel of a gun."

The man thought a while. "Anticipation, yes, but everything depends on the condition of the gun."

Said the prophet, "Yes, but everything also depends on the one who pulls the trigger."

The man went away unsatisfied, but later the prophet Herschel received a lucrative television contract.

Church scholars remain divided on the provenance of this passage. Some date it as far back as the first century BC, blaming the obvious anachronisms on an overly loose translation from the original Urdu. This original has not yet been located, but the style, they claim, is distinctly Urdu. A majority of scholars, however, conclude that the passage was adapted from writings in a bathroom stall in a Milwaukee bus terminal, presumably placed there by the prophet himself, and was incorporated into the canonical Book of Irony sometime in late August of 1983.

The Church of Irony and Hipster Saints

Now, it has been going around that I am a proponent of the church of irony, which is to say I am a believer. This is, of course, untrue. I am merely its messiah* — a title which holds no formal standing in the church. The church being what it is, doctrine holds that I am a false prophet and full of lies. Though given how I am the primary source of information on church of irony practices and beliefs, I can see how there has been some confusion. The church is a preposterous thing and I do not take it seriously in a religious sense. You might say I am very serious about the idea of the church**, and its use for illustrative purposes. Then again, it would be entirely appropriate if I were more serious about it than I let on. The nature of the project dictates that the church's beliefs reflect mine in a partial or distorted way. Consider it a funhouse mirror for the soul — neither wholly honest nor dishonest.

* Christ, they say, was Jewish.^ One might hazard that the existence of an honest freelance messiah is actually a rather inconvenient thing for an extant church hierarchy. Though even more so, it seems difficult to state that Christ could have faith at all, given His unique perspective on the whole God question.

^ Not that I am comparing myself to Jesus... or, technically I am, but not on any important level.

** But not so serious as to capitalize it. Consider this also my jab at Capitalized Concepts in general.

You could shave by means of such a mirror, if you had to, but only if you knew how it was bent. To know this, you must recognize your own face by its distorted image. It has been said that the church of irony is self-referential, and this is its downfall. Perhaps, but the whole history of philosophy is marked by self-recognition ("Know thyself" may ring a bell). And in a funhouse mirror, one may by chance percieve some features more clearly.*** To put it another way, absurdity necessarily contains some understanding of truth, or else it could not be recognized as absurdity.

*** Some features, in order of likelihood: the nose, the abdomen, and the sense of perpetual outrage.

[Absurd Digression]
By example: if I know that I am headed west, this is implicitly knowledge that I am not moving east. If I wish to head east, I need simply turn around. The truth/absurdity problem is presumably not be as easily resolved, though. Suppose I intend to scale Mt. Taranaki. It may be that I know with certainty that I am not at the top of Mt. Taranaki. Implicitly, I recognize some aspect of my current situation as inconsistent with my knowledge of Mt. Taranaki. Still, it cannot be overstated how difficult it is to reach the summit of Mt. Taranaki purely by empirical observation.

An illustration:

	vs.
Mt. Taranaki		Not Mt. Taranaki
	vs.
Also not Mt. Taranaki		Mt. Taranaki in Disguise

But what if, in my certainty, I turn out to be mistaken, and I actually am currently atop Mt. Taranaki? Well, I may be mistaken. I can always be mistaken. Possibly Mt. Taranaki has been socially constructed — which does not fully answer the question, either. I may tell you that a certain bridge has been constructed out of stone, but this will not enable you to build a new bridge. I may also tell you that the bridge was put in place by dropping it, all at once, from a very great height — but it is likely that I am mistaken. The problem of being mistaken is one of the things the church may yet manage to illuminate*. In the meantime, the author presently agitates for a more widespread understanding of statistics and probability.

(More clever skeptics may suggest that if, instead of Mt. Taranaki, I use Olympus Mons or Mount Doom, to illustrate that truth may be inaccesible or fictional, respectively, the analogy changes. It does! Interesting cases, both. But anyway...)

* More likely, a church representative will mistakenly arrive atop Mt. Taranaki, but believe he has scaled an undiscovered peak. Noting the excellent view and striking resemblance to Mt. Taranaki, he will found the Our Lady of Mt. New Taranaki Church, Daycare Center, and Wholesale Liquors.
[End Absurd Digression]

It may be helpful to elucidate some of the church's early and arguably core tenets. The church of irony was founded upon the proposal that the inherent purpose of the universe is to maximize the total amount of irony in the universe. Naturally, this requires that the universe contains beings capable of observing irony. By extension, it requires that these beings be capable of suffering, and for full measure that they be capable of suffering as a result of the observation of irony. This is a religious understanding; it is not falsifiable. With regards to scientific understanding, the church is wholly in favor of sincere scientific inquiry, on the premise that it would be ripping good fun if, in the distant future, at the very culmination of human civilization, earnest scientists discovered that the laws of physics were in fact a hoax all along. At this point, the laws of physics must arbitrarily change, and presumably the universe as we know it is destroyed.**** The church is very much in line with those Protestants who claim that dinosaur bones are a hoax, perpetrated by God and/or the Devil. Nonetheless the church also wishes they would shut up about it.

**** Or delicious chocolate ice cream rains from the sky; it's quite impossible to say. Be warned that, potentially, the ice cream is also an intelligent being capable of suffering.

Readers of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will note the similarity of the church's stance to this passage:

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Both theories are entirely in the spirit of the church, and the church is most likely (though it prefers not to admit it) in the spirit of the Guide. Perhaps it will reassure my concerned friends that the church of irony is a religion undertaken with an attitude of humorous science fiction, rather than humorous science fiction undertaken with an attitude of religion***** (which is to say, the Church of Scientology).

***** One breakaway sect of the church believes that verbal expressions have their own physical force, and that rhetorical reversals (such as the above) serve to drive a great piston engine that turns the clock of the universe and creates the sensation of time. This is of course impossible, but has led to extensive speculation as to what, precisely, it was that the Watchmaker said to the watch. The most popular candidate is currently, "It's about time!"

'09 was a fine time to rhyme lines

So it's 2010, and Pat already has the honor of the first post, but I thought I'd throw in a couple pennies regarding the music of the past year. In the realm of Hip-Hop, there are albums and there are mixtapes. To sum up recent history, the latter has long been littered with second-tier material, but as the game changes, and as independent artists work to establish fan-bases without waiting for music labels to grow enough cohenes to press an LP for them, the mixtape is experiencing an evolution. We're now seeing tapes with extremely high production value and some truly stellar rapping being handed to the fans without charge. So I present to you the top 10 (officially-sanctioned-by-the-artist) mixtapes of 2009.

10. Back On My Buck Shit - Young Buck

Stayin alive. Buck comes through with a solid effort. He stays on-point with his beat selection and delivers what he does best--eloquent tough talk.

9. Cold War Series - Gucci Mane

So this is actually three mixtapes. Gucci's push to fame has been fueled on the Wayne philosophy of heavy saturation. It's largely worked. The main thing holding him back in my mind is the lack of charisma in his delivery. Sure he's got a cool-sounding voice, but his intonation becomes repetitive; and sometimes it sounds like he's downright mumbling. He is improving lyrically, however, and his album wasn't half bad. Gucci sets the standard for trunk bangers.

8. How Fly - Currency & Wiz Khalifa

I would normally classify these two lost souls as B-grade artists never destined to truly blow, but to their credit, they've put together something special here. Their voices compliment one another, and I find Khalifa interesting for the similarities his delivery shares with Wale's. I feel like their way of flowing is distinct and generationally unique. Listen to to The Planes.

7. Trappin Ain't Dead - Young Jeezy

The No DJ version of this banger didn't stay around the internet for long, though you should be able to find a torrent somewhere. What legal failed to care about is that the bleeding idiot DJ (u suck Folk) who mixed this thing with drops apparently thought it would be a good idea to run the songs through a tin can. What true audio shows is Jeezy at his best. So many homophones, you'll jump for joy. Here's to actually getting better with age.

6. Kool-aid, Kush, & Convertibles - Rich Boy

Rich Boy can still put together great tapes. This drawl fest has a cohesive sound to its stellar instrumentals, which, aside from being great summertime music, also shows the emergence of Supavillian as a nice cat behind those boards. It's great in a trunk, but I recommend tracking down the No DJ version first.

5. Back To The Feature - Wale

Alarming Folarin disarms with his charming vernacular. Bears up to repeated listenings well. There's a lot to unpack here. I only wish there were fewer features..

4. midwestganstaboxframecadiallacmusic - Freddie Gibbs

It's been a big year for Fred. Three mixtapes in '09. This baby here grabbed a lot of people's attention. gangsta gibbs should be able to count on a big payoff in the near future.

3. B.o.B. vs Bobby Ray - B.o.B

When I first downloaded this, I wasn't even sure I'd listen to the whole thing. After all, wasn't this guy just a Drake to T.I.'s Wayne? And wasn't it half singing? The playcount on this sucker wound up being through the roof. For one thing, the rap production--done almost exclusively by a chap named Fury--was revelatory. Excellent sampling of Three Dog Night, Curtis Mayfield, and The Soggy Bottom boys, along with others, make for some fuckin catchy tunes. The singing side was solid, as well. It's hard to place the genre, but there's a certain purity to it. Just Bob and his instruments.

-Download B.o.B vs Bobby Ray-

2. No Ceilings - Lil Wayne

Still the reigning heavyweight champion. The singing is over. The beats have been eaten.

1. So Far Gone - Drake

So Drake gets his name in the record books for this one. So Far Gone's incredible commercial success came from the humble beginnings of a free-released independent mixtape. A success story so timely that it doesn't even matter what's really on the tape anymore. It is good stuff though. Great production, great guest spots, great songs for the ladies. Drake's precocious introspects are fun to listen to

The Book of Irony: An Introduction

The following is a rough guide to the holy text of the church of irony, sensibly called The Book of Irony, or sometimes Pilgrim's Pirouette. It is called many other things that will not be printed here today. Among the church's faithful it is widely considered to be outmoded, historically inaccurate, self-contradictory, and morally ambiguous -- in short, it is a flawless guide for modern living. It contains, among other things:

• Opening aphorism: "One does not carry sand into the desert, nor coal to Newcastle. The sick man shall go to the hospital and the heavy man to the gymnasium. Why then do you go about blessing the blessed?"
• Retroactive subway system proposals for ancient Sumer and Babylon.
• Apologia for the existence of the preceding, founded upon comparative underworld mythologies.
• A brief primer on the concept of anagnorisis, on which someone has drawn a spoon.
• Pencil sketches of street performers.
• Headlines from the Washington Times and New York Post, painstaking cut & rearranged into headlines from the New York Times and Washington Post.
• An extensive refutation of the previous item, with a convincing argument for the reverse.
• A crossword puzzle, in which every clue has been replaced with the phrase "SUCK IT."
• A set of traditional Zen koans, each with the exclamation "How ironic!" tacked on at the end.
• A chapter of self-referential parables, including "Consider the Mandelbrot Set".
• The final section is a series of blank pages with the heading "Beatitudes". It has been left as an exercise for the reader.
• In this section, on the last page, there is a handwritten Post-It note with the suggestion, "Blessed are the wicked."
• On the inside back cover, an order form for other religious texts from the same publisher. Among them
  • Putting the You Back in J-you-daism!
  • Zen and the Art of Religious Posturing
  • Mormon-y, More Problems
• The back cover itself is, out of a somewhat belated sense of shame, disguised as the Audubon Society Guide to the Birds of North America.

Ethical Arithmetic, and a Matter of Opinion

Lots of things to come back to, but first, an exercise in categorization. (Note: I imagine something like this has been done before, potentially by utilitarians, but it's been a while since I've read any.)

First, I propose that there is a quantitative and highly descriptive measure of one's ethics: The ratio S of the amount of suffering one will undergo to prevent similar suffering in others. The most fundamental example is the case of giving one's life to save that of another. Under egalitarian assumptions about the value of life, this is a ratio of exactly 1:1.

Some caveats: real-world ethical behavior is almost invariably more complicated than this. Firstly, there is the problem of quantitative measurements of suffering. There are as many valuations of suffering as there are people, but still, this is only a difficulty of measurement. For now, the individual is asked to rely on their own judgment of the relative merits of, say, long-term malnourishment vs. a swift kick to the testicles.

Secondly, there is the blanket term "others". In practice, people value the suffering of others at very different rates, depending on their relation to them. Alternatively, other humans represent a continuum of self-ness and other-ness. The exemplary case is the common willingness of parents to sacrifice for the well-being of their children. Note that under the alternate terminology, this suggests that these parents identify more with their children than with themselves. Conversely, someone may be generally considerate, but have a particular animosity for some foe, and delight in that person's every setback. For the purposes of this exercise, I will base the quantity S on perfect strangers.

Thirdly, there is the problem of agency. Most people, I would estimate, are more likely to allow suffering to occur than to actively create it. Most likely, this can be accounted for by the time, effort, and anxiety incurred by performing such an action, or by veering from one's ordinary course. In that case, this becomes a sub-problem of valuation.

Also related to valuation is the problem of the perception of suffering in others. People cannot take action to prevent suffering they are not aware of. Perceiving suffering requires the trait of empathy, and the ability to witness or imagine the suffering of others. In the interconnected modern world, most moral failures are failures of imagination.

Returning to the initial notion of S: S is the ratio of S_s, the amount of suffering undergone by the individual, to S_o, the amount of suffering prevented in the generic other. On a tentative basis, let's equate the creation of joy/pleasure with the prevention of suffering (though this is, I suspect, much more subjective than pain and suffering). Anyway, on to categorization:

S < 0: This is Sadism. Such a person goes out of their way to cause pain to others. They might, for example, work several days tarring roofs, in order to save up money for a pair of steel-toed boots, in order to more satisfyingly deliver a swift kick to your testicles. The problems of agency and empathy come up here in reverse -- such a person is more likely to enjoy their own actions than to be pleased, in the abstract, by starvation in distant countries. Also note that values of S less than -1 represent the radical case of someone who might, for example, break their own arm in order to make you late for the theater.

S = 0: At precisely 0, the person is said to be a Sociopath or Solipsist. For the solipsist, this might more fairly be called the case where S is undefined, since the true solipsist does not allow for an "other" to measure against. By my own reckoning, I consider the sociopath more dangerous than the sadist; if not recognized and prevented, a sociopath will take the most efficient route they can to their goals, whatever those may be, and potentially cause great harm along the way. It is expected that positions of prestige and power will be disproportionately occupied by talented sociopaths unless considerable safeguards are in place. Whether democratic elections, in various forms, effectively provide such safeguards is a matter of heated debate.

0 < S < 1: This represents, I presume, the spectrum of normal human behavior. let's call this Civility: people compromise, do small favors when asked, give charity to the less fortunate (since money is more useful for those who have less), and generally make some effort to avoid harming others. There is, of course, a wide variety here, from those who would risk near-certain death to save the life of another (e.g., a 95% chance of their own death against certainly preventing another's, which yields .95), to those who could hardly be bothered to get off the couch if someone were being crushed under it.

S = 1: This I will call Utilitarianism,"the greatest good for the greatest number." Obviously, a great many previous thinkers have also called this utilitarianism. In its purest form, this case is the most literally selfless, as it makes no distinction between the self and the other. In the ideal case of perfect perception, a society composed of utilitarians will be the happiest, as every action will maximally decrease the net suffering in the world.

S > 1: But wait, there's more! Here we enter the somewhat mystical territory of Altruism. While not selfless in the same way as utilitarianism, and in some sense sub-optimal, I find it hard to call this ethically inferior to the previous case. In a way, it mirrors the case of the sadist, in so far as there are obvious nonsensical scenarios. Few people would, for example, give Warren Buffet $100 as an expression of altruism -- the money could do more good elsewhere, and altruism need not be wholly irrational. What is far more intuitive, though, is a parent (as mentioned above) risking death for even a slim chance of saving their child (for a 75% chance of die-trying against a 25% chance of success, S is 3, and strictly non-utilitarian). Parents, as I said, are a special case, but the calculations are the same for total strangers, even if the attitude is rarer.

Note: This kind of calculation is not actually how people think, of course, especially in emergencies. People are notoriously bad at estimating probability, especially under duress. Rather, it represents how they might think of the situation when given time to reflect. In a crisis, parents are compelled to act by their emotional bond with their child. An equivalent altruist would need to feel the same bond with all humanity.

As long as one does not get to the point of self-destructive behavior, I'm inclined to say that utilitarianism versus altruism is a matter of personal choice, and neither can be said to be wholly superior. Given perfect information, utilitarianism is optimal, but no such thing exists. In practice, it may be perfectly useful to act as though there is more suffering than one can observe at any given time. Furthermore, given that society is not composed solely of utilitarians or altruists, there are almost always numerous opportunities for efficient (S < 1) prevention of suffering, and the difference will only come up in exceptional cases. Still, altruists with very high values of S must take care to avoid debilitating guilt over trivial matters.

Anyway, if you are still reading, congratulations. I feel as though I've only scratched the surface here, but a truly thorough treatment would probably require writing a book. On that note, acknowledgement goes to Rob, who got me thinking about the altruist/utilitarian divide during an unrelated religious hypothetical.

Me: So if we assume Heaven and Hell, then the most moral act is to give up your own salvation for that of another, but --
Rob: You mean, for two others...
*Tangential debate ensues*

On Free Will

Quantum mechanics dictates that all things are possible -- literally, all arrangements of matter have non-zero probability. At any moment, I may become an eggplant. Whether I have willed myself to become an eggplant -- ah, here it becomes a question of mythology.

"I feel they praisin too much, oh now they don't praise enough."

I suggest you buy this because it's a sonic experience.

Also, if you don't already have the following bonus track, be sure to toss it in the mix. It's a real stun gun.

Wale - Fly Away

The Best Rappers Alive, Part 2

So, I was going to wait until the end of the year to update this list, but now seems as good a time as any. I'll do some sort of best of '09 for year's end.

1. Wale

The promise shown in Nike Boots has been fully realized. Wale's mixtapes, including the most recent Back to the Feature, has shown just how intellectual this guy can get, and everything he's leaked off Attention: Deficit has been fantastic. It's only a couple weeks away, folks. Witness the future.

2. Lil Wayne

Mr. Carter is headed to the bing for the better part of a year now. I wish him all the best, and would council him by pointing out the wonders this could do for his craft. That mind forced to sit behind a wall for a year might yield something truly great. It's no coincidence that he seems to be rapping better than ever at the moment. The No Ceiling mixtape proves that he hasn't lost anything. It would be another Da Drought 3 if not for all the Young Money features. Wayne has the best jokes.

3. Obie Trice

One doesn't hear from Obie too often, but when he decides to drop something, it's decidedly amazing. Still, unless he releases his long awaited album soon, and maybe a mixtape every once and a while, Obie is in danger of drifting into obscurity. Maybe that's what he wants, but I would hate to see a talent like this take himself out of the competition.

4. Mikkey Halsted

Mikkey has definitely put in hours since the last time this list was published. He's prolific with the leaked tracks, getting a more diverse range of production, and has been spreading his namesake by collaborating with just about every Chicago Hip-Hop artist you can imagine. His Uncrowned City label is really becoming a force in the city. The Photo Album remains unreleased, as anticipation builds.

5. Freddie Gibbs

Whoa. I thought this guy was solid before, and then he went and dropped midwestgangstaboxframecadillacmusic. Might be the drop of the year. The production.. The lyrics.. I posted his previous drop earlier this year, and he's got another tape coming in November. Mainstream criticism loves this dude.

Special mention goes to Young Buck, who still has one of the best ears for production and has huge potential on his next album drop. Also, Lupe seems to be coming out of hiding more, and there's always the question of what that Drake album is going to prove. Stay Tuned.

Two-Fisted Whimsy

I suppose I'm on Twitter now, and I can't entirely justify it. Originally, I signed up and then didn't write a thing for months. then I had to use it to test some code for work, and I appear to be using it to comment on random things I observe in New York. So, yeah: my twoots. I will try not to let it become the traditional tedious stereotype. In fact, I'll try not to twut anything unless Oscar Wilde would be proud to have also twytted it first. That twink.

He had the time of his life

Yeah Dirty Dancing was great. Ghost was nice. But I always felt he was most appropriately cast as the motivational speaker/kiddie porn kingpin from Donnie Darko. R.I.P.

Libertarian Socialists Unite!

In my ideal America, the two most prominent parties are the Libertarians and the Socialists. I suspect this would solve a lot of our current problems with public discourse, especially since recent iterations of Republicanism strike me as libertarianism -- but without the ideas (in a similar vein I'd suggest that objectivism is a lot like libertarianism, but without the compassion).

Without going too far into that, I do think there is more concordance between libertarians and socialists than you would initially suspect. In practice, they tend to agree on social freedoms and disagree on economic policy. Fair enough, but why? Well, in practice again, there are assumptions made on both sides about economic results. Presumably much of this could be eliminated, but macroeconomics a science of very few trials and no control groups -- but who said it had to be easy? It seems, though, that there should be some core difference that prompts all this guesswork. I've been turning this over, and I put forward that both libertarianism and socialism can be extended from one root ethical proposition:

• Libertarianism: A government is an object, the purpose of which is to guarantee certain rights to its citizens.
• Socialism: A government is an object, the purpose of which is to promote the general welfare of its citizens.

You see? Now, very different things can arise from here depending on what rights you guarantee and how you define such a nebulous thing as "general welfare," but firstly we'll consider the point of agreement:

A government is an object.

It's easy to push right past this, but it's quite crucial when you stop to consider what else a government might be. In an authoritarian mindset, government is an absolute, and citizens are subordinate. Ethically the government becomes an end in itself, regardless of its actions. Alternately, one might simply state that government is a collection of people, which is almost always true in some sense, but as a starting principle drives towards an adversarial relationship -- especially when that collection of people begins the collection of taxes. Government as an object, however, is necessarily subordinate to its citizens (presuming we here agree to value people more greatly than objects, yes?). Any powers granted to such a government must be inherently necessary for its purpose. Any other powers are not legitimate powers of government -- any more than a bow-tie is part of a lawn mower.

Next Up: What if Peewee Herman mows your lawn? Also, I work on backing up some assertions.

Hitler Bingo, Books & Booze

The ad bar is full of hip-hop links again, so I'd better post something. Though I'm glad Alex has kept things from going dead in my absence. Still, probably best not to ogle Teddy K down there for too long.

Firstly, I am chagrined to note that the argument "Hitler: not such a bad guy, really" has been taken up by noted nationalist Pat Buchanan. See Matt Yglesias for one of many possible refutations. But also consider this statement:

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Here there is a vague and bewildering implication that the Holocaust could somehow have been avoided by leaving Hitler in power. There are no doubt hypothetical scenarios that might achieve this, but to blame Britain and France strikes me as bizarre. If war had been avoided (somehow), Hitler might have had less territory in which to build concentration camps, but it seems doubtful he would have been less genocidal in general.

Secondly, I was in DC this weekend, which was a good time but also provoked a serendipitous discovery: used books! Shortly before seeing Zach in a somewhat abridged Othello, I discovered the following at the preposterous price of 50 cents each:

• Ulysses - James Joyce
• A Connecticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court - Mark Twain
• The New American Bartender's Guide - John J. Poister
• The Year's Best Science Fiction (1992) - Edited by Gardner Dozois

The first three should require little explanation, but the fourth has also been quite a boon so far. I must admit historical minutia sometimes intrigue me, so I was pleased to find the foreword as a comprehensive "State of the Union" overview of where the sci-fi industry was at the time (including prescient predictions as to the lousiness of the then-new SciFi Channel). I'm only a little way in, but so far "Dust" by Greg Egan is the standout -- a fascinating meditation on artificial consciousness and the perception of patterns. Of course, if sex-crazed Moon colonists and weird neurotoxins are more your style, "Griffin's Egg" by Michael Swanwick is also well-worth reading.

The whole book will be very helpful, I think. Science fiction is my native genre, but it's far too easy to stick to a few well-known names (Asimov, Vonnegut, Gibson, Stephenson, etc.) in an effort to avoid the dreck out there. This is the case with nearly everything, of course -- it's easy to stick with what you know. Probably it should have occurred to me sooner to find an anthology or two, but hey, it's easy to forget about short fiction.

Speaking of things I didn't know, turns out there's a drink called the "Doctor Funk":
Doctor Funk

• ½ lime
• ½ lemon juice
• 1 tsp. sugar syrup
• dash grenadine
• 2-3 oz. dark Jamaica, Haitian, or Martinique rum
• Club soda
• ½ tsp. Pernod or Herbsaint bitters

Clearly this needs to be made soon. I may have to share some of the other 2,199 recipes in this thing as well.

T-Money

Mufasa!

Alle Zusammen!

In the spirit of the forklift safety video, Germany continues to provide the best in public service announcement humor. Here are 10 drugs you shouldn't be on while driving. Ins Deutsch!

All Black Everything

So, The Smoking Section put up some Jay-Z - Kanye verse analysis today. Comparing the two is really a silly exercise as they're nothing alike. But since the issue came up, I'll say that Kanye's awkward delivery moments will forever prevent his verses from reaching the transcendent nature of some of Jay's best. But I think Kanye's nice. I think he's actually getting better and better.

In fact, his much-talked about verse on Jay-Z's new single "Run This Town" may be one of his best ever. And the general consensus seems to be that Kanye murdered his Big Brother on the track.

Now don't get me wrong, Ye killed it. It was a dope verse and it builds as it goes. But I would still say that Jay's first verse on the track is the best one. Here you hear his voice and delivery become one with the music. (Which is masterfully provided by Yeezy and No I.D., a mentor-student partnership that I predict will allow 9/11's Blueprint 3 to finally live up to the original.)

Really, this song as a whole is probably the best thing out right now.

Biden Time

I'm increasingly confused by criticism of Joe Biden, which seems to be primarily of the form "I agree, but..." The latest bombshell from Shoeless Joe? Russia has problems. Well, okay.

While tact and diplomacy have their place, I find it hard to dislike a guy whose chief vice is being too honest. Would that we had more such men in government.

Koolaide, Kush, And What Else?..

..Old School Convertibles. Summer trunk music. If you own a car, it should play this whenever it is on.

Download Mixtape | Provided by DatPiff.com

What A Game

Mark Buehrle is having the best career ever.

Hitler: Overrated?

So, enough theory. Hitler: Overrated or Underrated? ...
Anyway, I've been trying out this weird little argument lately. It goes like this: aren't we lucky that Hitler was such a terrible artist?

I don't mean, "what if Hitler were accepted into the Vienna academy?" It's likely we would be better off if Hitler, lousy artist or not, had been able to pursue painting. But what if, after being rejected, after becoming Fuhrer, we looked back at his paintings and were forced to recognize genius? This is a "Hitler as van Gogh" hypothesis. Many artists aren't really appreciated until after their death, after all.

Of course, the first time I suggested this, someone asked me how I knew he was such a bad artist... and I had no idea. I was simply going on assumption. Fortunately I was able to find the pages here and here. The gist of it is that Hitler, while having some talent, was basically a hack. He supported himself by painting postcards (by necessity, these are fairly derivative), and while his architectural features are rendered in loving detail, living figures tend to be disproportionate and haphazard.

Third, notice the perspectives. Architectural perspectives are rendered with extreme precision, with almost loving attention to detail; however, people and animals are out of proportion, poorly articulated, and vastly out of scale with the backgrounds. Figures are rendered with wanton disregard for anatomy or accurate animation. This is the primary reason he was rejected by the Vienna School of Fine Arts: "Test drawing unsatisfactory."

So we can reassure ourselves that Hitler was nothing terribly interesting on the art front. What if he had been? I'm not sure how we would handle it. Hitler, in contemporary language, occupies a unique role: he is a historical individual with no redeeming qualities, the nadir of moral expression. And he occurred after the bulk of our moral and historical framework was in place -- Nero and Attila the Hun are less singularly alarming for that reason. What would we do without him? Probably substitute Stalin -- Stalin doesn't have a lot going for him, though he was smarter than Hitler. World War II would have gone quite differently, save for a number of monumentally poor strategic decisions by Hitler.

But switching to Stalin only reframes the question. We seem to need someone to think of as unequivocally bad. In contemporary debate, it's often easy to tar all Democrats or all Republicans, or Obama or Bush* with this brush. Mature positions, in my experience, have fewer and fewer individuals painted as pure black (but plenty of dark gray, certainly), but we can all, seemingly, agree on Hitler. So, in an extremely limited way, we're lucky that there's no particular reason to say "That Hitler guy? not as bad as he seems."

And yet, too many people are out there defending Hitler on wholly irrational grounds. Not many, thankfully, but still too many.

*Seemingly inept and authoritarian, but still no Hitler.

The Over/Under on Underrated Oeuvres

While I am, as you may have noticed, a big fan of context, I also think that "overrated" and "underrated" are two of the less interesting concepts in criticism. Joe Posnanski adeptly demonstrates the problems with "underrated" as a long-term reputation.

Underrated is a Zen place to be. What I mean by that is you can only be underrated for as long as people do not notice that you are underrated. Once someone starts calling you underrated, you begin to lose your footing. When enough people start calling you underrated, you stop being underrated. And when you become known as the “most underrated anything,” well, the jig is up.

Overrated has slightly different problems. When you say something is overrated, there is a risk that what you are actually saying is that you object to other people enjoying it. It actually directs your point away from whatever it is you object to, and makes it an attack on the fans. Here's the thing: fans are easy targets. You can find idiots in favor of nearly anything; it's very easy, in any sort of public debate, for both sides to trot out opposing idiots as straw men.

The nice thing about this as a logical fallacy is that the designated idiot has no doubt committed all manner of extravagant crimes against logic in the first place, making yours look not so bad. Of course, what happens in the end is that both sides feel free to ignore each other, and you get a nice display of pomp and fury without the risk of any real communication occurring.

An example: Rush Limbaugh is not really worth paying attention to. Some would say he's a big fat idiot. That is perhaps not productive discourse, but I feel relatively comfortable saying that Limbaugh is not acting in good faith. But, for some reason, Limbaugh has been big news lately. He seems to have a certain amount of clout in the GOP, but it's hard to say for sure -- maybe he's just easier to spot nowadays due to the lack obvious leadership in the GOP. But anointing him leader of the GOP is actually an advantage for the Democrats, because it makes the Republicans look crazy. And the gist of the argument becomes, "Rush Limbaugh is overrated." While this is politically useful, it has the downside of focusing even more attention on Limbaugh. So he becomes a bigger deal, gets more coverage, and increasing the perception that he's overrated.

Along the same lines is the practice of reading about celebrities in order to feel outraged at how much coverage they receive. Some people are "famous for being famous," but even originally noteworthy people are sometimes swallowed up by their own fame. Arguably, I am contributing to the problem even now.

But back to my main point: while the mechanisms of these cultural feedback loops are interesting, the contents themselves rarely are. When you claim something is overrated, you're giving a large, nebulous group of people control of the context. While in some cases the overrating has its own significance -- Limbaugh being overrated translates into real political power, for example -- it's still peripheral to the core argument. Eventually, you have to get down the business of explaining why he's wrong (I am assuming, for the purpose of argument, that you can find something to disagree with Rush Limbaugh about).

EDIT: And after that, you have to get down to the real business of explaining why you're right.

Twissa Twis

Twista can be real nice. His latest Category F5 album is one of those times when he is. The music is good, and I'm interested to see the kind of numbers this release will do. It was independent and I thought the marketing was done well. Twista got real tight with the most popular Chicago hip-hop blog and reaped the benefits with tons of relevant exposure. Furthermore, I think they designed the album to encourage single-track download sales, accomplishing this through a number of diverse and well-executed high-profile features. Fan of Kellz? Then you gotta have that "Yellow Light" track. Kanye nut? Then that"Alright" joint is a must. Gucci and OJ devotee? "Walking On Ice" bangs. Oh yeah, and there's that sweet Akon cut. Twista basically just packed an album together with songs he thought would be hits. Nice work.

If you got the official release, make sure to download this stunner with fellow fast-spitter Tech N9ne that leaked last week. It didn't make the album due to sample-clearance issues. The sample is a Jesus Christ Superstar song. The song is fantastic.

Twista - Problems (Feat. Tech N9ne)

A Case of Mistaken Identity

The really fortunate thing, when one is playing Devil's Advocate, is that one is not tasked with proving Satan's innocence. Such as thing is by definition impossible. One need merely prove he is not Satan.

See also: A Tale of Two Santas

Whitey: Santa Claus, you stand accused of crimes against humanity. How do you plead?
Bender: Not Santa!
[Farnsworth stands up and points at Bender.]
Farnsworth: There he is again!
[He shoots Bender in the back.]

Conspicuous Signals

While the Daily Dish is often fascinating, this post troubles me. There are a number of assumptions with troubling consequences. It is itself a response to Matt Yglesias, who regrets that reading a book on the Kindle does not have the same signaling capacity as reading it on paper. Conor Clarke objects to his concern on the basis that it is a desire for "conspicuous consumption." He refutes conspicuous consumption in this fashion:

First, the supply of status in a given society is fixed. If I go from being the 198,745,647th most popular person in the United States to the 198,745,644th most popular person, I must displace some others on the way up. In the game of status, not everyone can be a winner. Second, conspicuous consumption leads to an arms-race mentality that produces wasteful consumption. Every dollar or minute I spend pruning my outfit or adjusting my bookshelf is a dollar or minute that I will not be spending on something intrinsically enjoyable, like writing a blog post.

Firstly, the notion of "status" as a single, linear scale is demonstrably nonsense. Consider the case where the book is Das Kapital, and then consider Atlas Shrugged. Each book will signal something different to different observers, not a flat "+15 status points." The idea of a unified status scale only works if you conflate "status" with "wealth" -- which, to be sure, often occurs in normal cases of conspicuous consumption (indeed, since the Kindle is an expensive luxury, it fits the traditional definition better than any single book). There is a difference between signals which are intended to convey superiority and those which are intended to convey certain values or interests (they may be intertwined, however).

Actually, the question of intent to signal is rather interesting. Yglesias could, if he wished, still purchase the physical copy of the book. Why doesn't he? The Kindle copy is cheaper and more convenient, functionally superior. If he bought the physical book, that would be a wasteful display -- conspicuous consumption.

Secondly and relatedly, Clarke assumes that all outward signs ("outfit...bookshelf") are there only to serve as signs. He seems to discount the possibility that one has read (or even intends to read) the books on one's bookshelf. Now, if the books are there to serve as status symbols, then they are false signals, a representation with no reality -- a lie, if you will. I think we can all agree, without further ado, that we disapprove of liars and especially posers. But why? Well, for one, they are polluting a formerly useful channel of communication.

While everything about us is, to some degree, a signal, books are especially useful in that regard. Signals are often symbols -- they stand for something else, a community, an idea. Your mohawk, my leather jacket, a briefcase -- they suggest things. A book, simply enough, stands for the text between its pages, and all its attendant notions. A well-understood book is very concise in this way. Not to mention, for the book to be at it's most effective, you should be reading it. It requires action and continued effort to display, and this is fundamentally honest. To carry around a book with no intention of reading it -- how sad!

So, a representation with no reality is a lie. Then what is a reality with no representation? Isn't this also dishonest? If I wrap a romance novel in brown paper because I am ashamed of it, there is something amiss. In that case, though, the concealment is a deliberate action on my part. For Yglesias, it is simply the nature of the Kindle that causes the appearance to be separated from the contents. Obviously, the Kindle has many advantages, and I wouldn't judge him for using it, but it does lack a certain intrinsic honesty found in books.

As I mentioned, the problem with signals is that they can be faked. This is the disadvantage of brevity. Some things are easier to fake, however. It is easier to carry one book falsely than to arrange a whole fake bookshelf, and harder still to make sure all those book are well-worn and tastefully annotated (note: but not impossible). The lesson here, however, is not to say "all representations are false", throw up your hands and give up on communicating with other humans. It simply requires that you not take any one signal in isolation. CONTEXT MATTERS.

Now, this does produce something of an argument in favor of "conspicuous consumption," from the observer's point of view. If someone is willing to spend money on something, they must care about it to some degree -- or they care about appearing to care. Sometimes this is good enough. This is how I interpret the custom of wearing a suit to an interview: it doesn't really prove that you're "professional"; it proves that you realize they expect you to look "professional," which is a good first step.

As a final point, Clarke mentions that one can now use Facebook and Twitter to substitute for the "book cover effect" by creating virtual bookshelves and such. These are great (I use one) and have the advantage that you can keep note of books you've borrowed from the library and read (conspicuous non-consumption?). On they other hand, if you're concerned about false signals, they're much easier to fake because, after all, they're free. I concede, however, that free-ness removes the issue of wasteful spending. More importantly though, these programs aren't really a replacement, since they operate on the Internet. Much as I love the Internet, it still pales in comparison to the physical world as a medium for socialization.

In essence, I object to Conor Clarke on the grounds that not all visible activity is conspicuous consumption.

EDIT: The whole blogpile begins with this piece in Vanity Fair, which is interesting but pushes the status/conspicuous consumption angle much more heavily. Clarke is justified in using the term on those grounds, but it was not clear to me from his piece (see, folks? context). Derek Thompson's response to the VF piece is also worth looking at. Everything I argued above still holds, but I may have misrepresented Conor Clarke on the way. Hopefully I can tackle this whole "culture snobbery" thing from another angle soon.

Variation on a Theme

A possible refinement of "power corrupts...":

Power that is felt to be undeserved engenders feelings of paranoia in the powerful. This paranoia naturally leads to abuse of power, which heightens the sense of guilt/inadequacy, leading to further paranoia, etc.

Only holds true for certain personality types, of course. The possibility of a neurotic, guilt-racked dictator is somewhat intriguing, though. Paranoia and the abuse of power go hand in hand, as in Stalin, Ahmadinejad, Joe McCarthy, and Bush/Cheney (obviously these represent varying levels of abuse).

EDIT: Inspiration for this actually comes from this here Joe Posnanski article on LeBron James/Nike.

Subjectivity

I am always wracked by sentimentality, in large part because I demand to live in a context rich with emotional meaning. I invest everything around me with a narrative, or a place in a larger narrative, until everything is more or less humming with crucial purpose. You may be wondering, what does this have to do with Red Faction?

This piece on Penny Arcade touches on a number of things I've been going on about lately (or will be going on about shortly), mainly a certain kind of subjectivity in art. Video games are especially apt in this way, since the actions of the player change the content of the game in a much more recognizable way than, for example, how one approaches a painting.

Also, Tycho is an excellent writer, so touches on these things much more gracefully than I would. This, as my brother once said to me, is the problem of being a philosopher rather than a poet -- that a poet can say things more elegantly, more quickly than a philosopher can. On the other hand, as a philosopher one can explain things at greater depth. I have, I think, more ability with poetry, but in any case I find it difficult to be both at once.

Also, I will say Casey has more grace with philosophy than I do, and his blog is well worth reading.

R.I.P.

"Love never die, but it can kill you." - Dwayne Carter

And he can't do this and he don't do that.

I respect this man. Not so much as a rapper. But definitely behind the boards. Also, he's always seemed a bit unhinged and I hear he's into guns. Plus, look how nice those Jordans are.

This song here is just about one year old. It got some rotation in the fall, mostly at parties with lots of drunk girls. It came so quickly on the heels of Lollipop and had no better lyrics that I largely dismissed the track. But coming back to it now, I have found appreciation. Namely, that's a damn good sample of a song right there. You have taken the basic elements of Lollipop and reworked them into an entirely different sound. Also, I have no idea what kind of bass he's using here, but that shit knocks down walls. daviddaviddaviddaviddaviddavidbanner.

You can watch the video on YouTube, but I can't seem to embed it in this country. I can, however, give you the instrumental, just in case you need to get some sick flow off your chest this morning.

R.I.P.

Shocking, to be sure.

At the risk of sounding terrible, I'm going to go on record as saying that it's a good thing he passed. Let's face it, the man's life was pretty much locked in downward spiral mode. Now we can remember him as he was, instead of as decrepit.

I Need You

Ok. I'm just going to come out and say it again for everyone who didn't hear me last time. Obie Trice is the best rapper alive. To me, he takes all the best aspects of Biggie, Jay, and Wayne and adds something great of his own on top of that. Excellent use of alliteration, wordplay, and clustered rhymes make his verses some of the most interesting in the game. Plus, he's as real as they come and currently has a bullet in his brain. You want to tell him he's not the best?

He's looking for recognition in this latest drop. Talking about the complexities of taking his label private, Obie calls on his fans and internet supporters to spread the word about his greatness. Just doing my part.

Obie Trice - I Need You (Freestyle)