Tuesday, June 30, 2009
And he can't do this and he don't do that.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
R.I.P.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
I Need You
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Victory Consistently
i’m goin for the goal.
my heart is in control.
my mind is on succeed.
and i am in the lead.
don’t buy into the schemes,
the science or stratege.
just giant n.u.t.’s
bring triumph and belief.
i’m reliant, or redeem,
never tired or fatigued,
never defiant to my team,
never lyin on da thing,
until i’m lyin on da thing
hooked to wires and things.
imma die as a king.
if i don’t do it now,
i’m gonna try it again,
and when i do accomplish it,
i’m gonna try it again.
i’m a riot—insane.
i’m a lion, my mane
hangs
down to my strings,
and they’re tied to the game.
i stay dry when it rains.
i’m tired of the fame.
got everything to gain,
and i’m proud of the pain,
the bride in the plain,
the wise and the strange.
denied by the same.
besides, we’re the same.
who’s guiding the train?
who’s flying the plane?
who’s driving the lane?
who dies when it bang?
who fires when it bang?
who lies in the aim?
two lives in the drain.
who cries when he sang?
you hide, but you can’t.
you high, but you ain’t.
i advise you to think.
you’ll find what you can’t.
revive what you taint.
survive what you bring.
supersize what you shrank,
the fries and the drank.
admired as a saint,
defined by my rank,
combined with my strength,
my time and my length.
imma iron out the kinks.
yes i’m on a rink,
and in the eye of a wink,
imma retire in a bank.
The song is also dedicated to Michael Phelps, which is great stuff, because I approve wholeheartedly of all of Phelps' post-Olympic recreational activities. Did you know he's writing a children's book?
It's A Fiasco
Also, Real Things
While it may not mean much, the protesters in Iran have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
Monday, June 15, 2009
On Hostile Assumptions
This is only a reasonable response if one begins from the assumption "Dave Letterman is a pedophile," or at the very least "Dave Letterman is an enemy seeking to cause me harm." This sort of cultural paranoia is, I repeat and repeat, poisonous to real communication.
In short, hostility is not an appropriate response to ambiguity.
Letterman's apology is actually quite well-done, since he apologizes for poor execution of the joke rather than any real hostility (presumably there is none). When one is in entertainment, and speaking publicly, one takes on a responsibility to be understood, so this is fair. Of course, with a truly hostile audience, it's impossible to fulfill this responsibility. As such, Letterman's apology makes the charitable assumption that Palin's response was derived from confusion rather than malice.
So yeah, in these terms, Letterman has the moral high ground here.
Alcoholism + Productivity
This is one of the maddening things about New York -- upper Manhattan anyway. The population density means it can support an immense number of businesses, but due to the limitations on space, each one of them is laughably small. Instead of the wide selection you see at a standard Chicago or (God help you) suburban supermarket, you get several copies of the same limited selection. Most businesses have an incentive to set themselves apart (restaurants, for example), but grocery stores don't seem to have that pressure on them.
Anyway, I went to the spacious, gleaming Whole Foods and contemplated the splendid nonsense of capitalism:
-On entry, I was nearly annihilated by the vast selection of smelly cheeses available from the deli. Potent indeed.
-There is less price variation between different qualities of food than there is between different qualities of cookware ($16 seems like a lot for a colander, even if it is square).
-Beer selection was good, more expensive than supermarket-price, but cheaper than bodega-price. Yuengling was an unexpected steal at $6 per 6-pack.
In the end, I walked out with both yeast and beer (Yuengling of course). Mead-making is successful so far: the yeast seems to have taken hold. This gives me three of four months to come up with terrible Viking-themed ideas for what to do with it. Skål!
Friday, June 12, 2009
Younger Than Ever
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Gangsta Gibbs
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Proposal on Conservativism
1) Individual vs. Government power: the individual should be preferred to the state, but the conservative narrative ignores the difference between the actual, human individual (the citizen) and the abstract, corporate "individual". Government is not the only method of concentrating power.
2) Cultural Unity vs. The Other: as I said previously, a narrow cultural identity is poisonous in a democracy. As far as conservatives recognize this, they seem intent on destroying other cultural identities through legislation. Again, this is counterproductive. If two cultures are really incapable of compromise, democracy is impossible and civil war must result. If some democratic compromise is possible, then the cultures share key values and it behooves us to recognize this.
Monday, June 08, 2009
On Authorship
Any college English student can tell you that this doesn't really matter.
Any author will tell you this is the most terrifying thing about writing.
(Use of the style of aphorism borrowed from Nietzsche by way of my brother.)
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Humanism and Anti-Humanism
As a humanist, I believe in the brotherhood of humanity. That is, the shared identity of being human is primary, and I have no intrinsic quarrel with any other person. But the humanist must be ready to deal with the anti-humanist, generally the chauvinist (who believes in the irrational superiority of his own group).
Now, irrationality does not suggest inferiority. Cultural identity is axiomatic to the chauvinist, just as human identity is to the humanist (I've been very concerned about cultural identities lately, for this reason). But at the most extreme, the chauvinist is prepared to treat the humanist as an enemy based on what the humanist takes to be a trivial detail. What is the appropriate response?
Ethically, the humanist is obliged to be reasonable for as long as possible; these things are rarely cut and dried, and many things that can be seen as conflict are merely failures to communicate. Again, in the most extreme case, rationality no longer plays a role -- we've entered into a sort of Hobbesian state of war between human and human. This may be obvious upon consideration, but peace and rationality rely on mutual consent -- there is no such thing as a unilateral peace.
At this breakdown, there are two choices. One gives primacy to self-defense; once the state of war is entered, one may take any action necessary to defend oneself or others from harm (harm to others must be considered harm to the humanist). This gives rise to the notion that the good are obliged to be dangerous.
The other option is pacifism, which rejects the state of war even at this point. And who is to say this is incorrect? I have mentioned the power of non-violence in discovering the humanity of the oppressor (the anti-humanist is still human at all times). A purely pacifist approach may be going even further, though.
Does the pacifist err in refusing to separate the just cause from the unjust? Or does he achieve something greater, by means of a leap of faith? I don't know that it can be determined. In practicality, one rarely deals with this momentous choice. Still, I think it is informative in how one identifies and deals with opposition of all stripes.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Some Jokes About Jokes
Now, we're all familiar, I hope, with this old chestnut:
Two guys walk into a bar. One of them ducks.At root, it's just a pun on the two meanings of bar. But it's also a joke about jokes, because it wouldn't be funny except for a heaping pile of even older chestnuts in which, you know, two guys walk into a bar. In a strange sort of parallelism, there's also a joke about a duck who walks into a bar. That one's not important, though.
My favorite joke is the one that starts like this:
A baby seal walks into a club...Actually, it ends like that, too. You don't know awkward until you're standing in front of your co-workers at the holiday party, and the head of the company you just joined says, "Well, go on." That's the risk you run when all your jokes play on what the audience expects from a joke. That aside, it's a great joke: I've never seen another that combines brevity, meta-humor, and brutality towards adorable animals in quite the same way.
Now for Noam Chomsky. He's got this sentence about grammar:
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.Got that? Well, don't worry; it's meant to be a demonstration of how a sentence can be grammatically sound, but not have any semantic meaning. The parts of speech are correct, but green things can't be colorless, ideas don't have color nor do they sleep, and if they did they couldn't sleep furiously. Granted, if you work hard enough with figurative meanings, you can come up with something (there have been competitions), but let's just say it's meaningless.
And here's where I work my "magic":
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. One of them ducks.I'm telling you, it kills with linguists... Hopefully that was funny, because now I'm going to explain it. As we all know, any joke properly explained ceases to be funny. So this is your last chance. Note that both the "joke" and "non-joke" versions are equally meaningless in an objective sense, but somehow one of them is a joke, and the other isn't. The first version is a bit of nonsense, while the second is two bits of nonsense grafted together, creating a joke, which you might say is just a different kind of nonsense. Of course, the crucial thing is that the audience knows the contexts of both halves of the joke, and the way that those clash creates the humor. You can analyze this joke on as many layers as you want, and I think that's funny too, given that the original statement is from someone looking into the minute details of how language works... I like this joke more than is strictly healthy, I think.
So I'll leave you with one more joke (not mine) that might be about linguistics. It's kind of hard to say:
How do you tell the difference between a duck?
One of its legs are both the same.