|
By
Wil Forbis
|
|
|
You want archives motherfucker? Check
this shiz-nit out: |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The current New York Review of Books has a review on a couple of recent volumes by moral philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is always controversial, a forceful advocate for animal rights, often at the expense of what many would refer to as human rights. His most recent path of exploration is the idea that the affluent (which basically means anyone living in a first world country) have a moral obligation to donate a significant chunk of their wealth to the starving and dying masses in Third World countries. To make his case, he asks people to consider the following dilemma: you come across a child who has fallen into a shallow pond and is about to drown. Should you wade in and rescue the child, even though it will ruin your shoes and get your clothes muddy?
As the author of the book review states, "most people agree that anyone who didn't rescue the child would be a moral monster." And from there, Singer builds a fairly solid argument that the effort required for most of us to save dozens, possibly hundreds of lives in Africa etc. is equivalent to us getting our clothes muddy. At the very least, we should give up whatever wealth we have aside from what we need need to eat, live modestly and take care of our health.
However, I have to wonder whether Singer's sound, logical, rational argument is built on a logical fallacy. Is it logical that we should save that child in the pond? I haven't read all of Singer's work, so maybe he makes a solid argument somewhere, but I'm not aware of it. All the book reviewer can muster is, "most people agree..." Of course, "most" people agree in all sorts of stupid things.
This gets into something I'm always talking about: in order for morality makes sense, you need some sort of universal doctrine. For some people it's religion and its commandments from God, though that's sort of a might equals right argument.
From an evolutionary point of view, our reaction to the dilemma about the child makes perfect sense. We have an investment in health and well-being of those around us, those in our tribe. By rescuing this child, we are putting payment into an insurance plan by which that child might rescue us someday. Simultaneously, our disinterest in the well-being of people far far away, who likely will never ever chance to save our lives also make sense.
I shouldn't simplify Singer's views on this topic: he freely admits he doesn't give the amount of his wealth that he advocates --- part of his philosophical rumination is why these logical arguments haven't taken hold on himself. And he acknowledges people like Warren Buffett who, by cannily reinvesting their wealth, will have a far greater amount to give away when they die.
On a side note, I might argue that there's another reason not to save the child's life. The kid is drowning in a fucking pond! How stupid do you have to be to do that? Perhaps our tribe would be better off if his genes were not allowed to continue.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Autopsy shows Haim had enlarged heart, manager says
It's touching really. Even after all the suffering, all the injustices visited upon him by the uncaring Hollywood machine, it turns out Corey Haim had a gigantic heart, filled with love.
You know it be a fun idea? Starting one of these websites that purports to tell people about their ancestry, but the whole thing would be rigged to inform than that they were direct descendents of some genocidal dictator or an insane pedophile who ate his own feces. Maybe the website would actually beg the user to kill themselves to prevent their DNA from poisoning the larger gene pool.
Lately, when fortune permits, I've been watching the show "Spectacle" hosted by Elvis Costello. It largely consists of Elvis chatting with a featured songwriter about the art of tunesmithing and performance. Last night was the first of a two-part series with Bruce Springsteen. It was interesting, but made me realize that while I like the Boss's pop canon --- songs such as "Born in the USA" or "Dancing in the Dark" --- I cannot stand the weepy, syrupy and supposedly profound ballads he was originally known for --- "The River" for example. Not only do they bore me on a musical level, I find the lyrics rather pedestrian as well.
At the end of last night's show, Bruce and Elvis performed a rather off key version of a Sam and Dave song. Almost as bad were cutaway shots of the audience of 50 something yuppies nodding sagely in agreement with whatever Springsteen happened to be babbling about.
Perhaps next season Elvis will interview Bruce the funny dog.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
My interest in the death of Corey Haim was more pronounced than it normally would be for a celebrity B-Lister. This is because Haim rose to fame in the geek love story "Lucas" and kids in my middle school used to tease me for my resemblance to Haim in that role. It was years later when I finally saw the film, and I had to admit that we did look a lot like. "Lucas" was an oddball little film, perhaps most noteworthy for the gamut of future celebrities in its cast. Off the top of my head I recall Haim himself, Winona Ryder, Charlie Sheen, Courtney Thorne Smith and even Jeremy Piven.
Years later, when I was in Hollywood exploring the vocation of film production, I had a long discussion with a woman who aired what was then a still barely kept secret: that Haim was a hard-core drug addict, seemingly impervious to rehabilitation.
If you look at the picture at the link, it seems like Haim was well on his way to turning into Mickey Rourke.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Who says chicks are incompetent and exist only to serve men?
Well, I do, but this one can play guitar.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Christopher Lee of Hammer films, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings fame has some sort of fruity symphonic metal album out. (From my listens, it sounds high on fruitiness and low on metal.) One song seems to repeat the phrase, "I shed the blood of the Saxons."
Speaking of symphonic writing, it struck me today that it's curious that there was so little collaboration in symphonic and classical composition in the days if yore. Bach wrote all of his music, Mozart wrote all of his music etc. You'd think there would have been some situations where a great piano player would have teamed up with a great violin player to write a violin* concerto. To my knowledge, this never happened. Of course, most modern rock music is entirely a collaborative effort --- the bass player writes his part, the drummer his etc.
*On an amusing note: I'm using voice dictation to write this post, and when I said "violin" it initially spelled it as "violent" bringing to mind the classic Gilda Radner "what's wrong with violins on television" Saturday Night Live sketch.
Interesting... Jamie Escalante, the teacher who inspired the film "Stand and Deliver" is dying from cancer.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Lately I've been on a strange kind of postmodern, deconstructionist trip and find myself contemplating the unreality of many of the philosophical and intellectual structures around us.
This train of thought first applied itself to music. Take scales for instance: I've spent more than 20 years learning scales, and practicing scales and thinking about scales. It's only recently struck me that scales do not exist in any physical or universal sense. We can allow that notes exist, insomuch that things do vibrate, and when they vibrate at certain frequencies they can be sensed by the human ear in a way that we call notes. But the decision that certain notes grouped together add up to a major scale was a decision made by humans. It's a semantical abstraction. In a certain sense, this is obvious, but many musicians throughout history would argue that this or that note was a "wrong" note.
I could apply the same line of thinking to sandwiches. What defines a sandwich? If I take one slice of bread off the sandwich, does it cease to be a sandwich and become merely a piece of bread with stuff on top of it? We treat these semantical definitions as the rule of God, but they are ultimately rules with no teeth.
When we apply this realization to our weightiest concepts --- greed, Justice, wrong, right etc., --- when we strip those words of any meaning, then we really get into interesting territory. And when we apply it internally, to our sense of self, it gets downright scary. We all define ourselves as having a consciousness or a soul. But what does that really mean? Is that merely an arbitrary, human defined notion with no real meaning? Some people would say their body contains several consciousnesses (e.g. split personalities), some would say they're part of a larger consciousness that encompasses many bodies, or all living things. Where do we draw the line in the sand to indicate the beginning and ending of our selves?
I was lying on the floor thinking about this a couple days ago, and I started to feel my sense of reality stripping away. So I stopped.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
It saddens me to hear about the New York's Governor Paterson's scandal and calls for him to resign. I like the guy.
But then I realized I only liked Fred Armison's portrayal of him on Saturday Night Live
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
As everyone knows, the period during which a person is struggling with a disease is when they are most in need of companionship and emotional support. And sometimes this desperation leads sick people to make poor choices about the people they surround themselves with.
That's why I'm starting a new dating site, "Cute Chicks with Diseases." The website will feature nothing but attractive young women in the throes of horrible ailments. As a result, their standards for physical attractiveness, grooming or personality will be thrown out the window.
You might be saying, "The problem with chicks with diseases is they often have physical signs of their disease such as lack of skin color, hair loss or open sores." But my dating site has searched through the patient files of hospitals worldwide to locate young women who, while sick, show no outward signs of their ailments.
Dating cute chicks with diseases has numerous benefits, the most outstanding being this: are you one of those timid fellows who has a hard time breaking up with a girl once the relationship has lost your interest? Well, most of our members die within six to 12 months anyway, so you won't have to wait long! (Don't forget to get written into the will.) And, once your paramour has passed on, you'll have that killer "my last girlfriend died" line which can be used to lay waste to the hearts of any woman you come across.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Since I've moved to San Diego I've been playing a lot of open mics. These are pretty ideal outlets for me because you play for short period which is easy on my arms and, if I'm having a bad day and have to skip one, no one can accuse me of being a flake. Plus you get a nice little built-in crowd of fellow musicians, all eyeing you with disdain.
On the hierarchy of gigs, open mics are thought to be at the bottom. The stereotype is that they're filled with amateur musicians bleating about some heartbreak nobody cares about. And you do often encounter such musicians. But I'm finding I enjoy watching open mic performances more than regular shows. In essence, every time you watch a new musician get on the stage, it's like pulling back the arm on one of those "Lucky 7s" gambling machines. Will they be great? Will they be awful? Will their lyrics be thinly disguised attacks on an lover that scored them? There is a tension emanating from open mic performers that you you just don't see with more professional bands.
In the past three or four months I've seen all the classic open mic clichés. Angry feminist folk singer? Check. Middle-aged introverted dork singing about the perceived inferiority of everyone around him? (As he walked off the stage, you could almost hear him muttering, "The fools! They'll come crawling back to me when they realize how right I am!") Check. Jocks attempting to be sensitive? Check. Horrible open mic comedians? Check.
But I've also seen a lot of really good music. The truth is, a significant percentage of open mic performers are just regular musicians try to keep their chops up on an off night.
I was, at first, pretty rusty when I got up there --- I've never been that comfortable in a completely solo performance situation. But after two or three performances I loosened up and I've been pretty happy with myself since. I get the sense that the audiences are impressed with my musicianship and songwriting, but they don't quite "get" me. Most of what I play these days is music orbiting around the world of tin Pan Alley jazz or country. If we can consider genres of music to be like dialects of language, then I think I'm speaking a dialect that most people aren't familiar with. The main tongue in San Diego is the kind of urban folk pop popularized by Jewel* and Jason Mraz, two veterans of the San Diego folk scene.
* Jewel apparently used to work for the guy who owns the coffee shop hosting the open mic I frequent the most. I've always hated her music but would love to have sex with her breasts.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Interesting and compelling series of photos from the Chilean earthquake here. Makes me think these current casualty estimates are bound to rise.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Continuing My So-Called Penis's award-winning coverage on robotic drones: New role for robot warriors.
Science fiction sometimes depicts robot soldiers as killing machines without conscience or remorse. But at least one robotics expert today says that someday machines may make the best and most humane decisions on the battlefield.
Guided by virtual emotions, robots could not only make better decisions about their own actions but also act as ethical advisers to human soldiers or even as observers who report back on the battlefield conduct of humans and whether they followed international law.
...
Dr. Arkin has begun work on an ethical system for robots based on the concept of "guilt." As a robot makes decisions, such as whether to fire its weapons and what type of weapon to use, it would constantly assess the results and learn. If the robot established that its weapons caused unnecessary damage or casualties, it would scale back its use of weapons in a future encounter.
I have to confess that the contrarian in me* is tickled by the notion that -- after years of propaganda about "Terminator" style killer robots --- robots could end up being more humane than humans on the battleground. And this whole topic creates an interesting premise for a science fiction novel: standard warfare that is "refereed" by robots who immediately report violations of the Geneva conventions etc.
But not everyone's on board...
New laws will be needed to constrain the use of autonomous (without a human operator) robot weapons on the battlefield, argues Noel Sharkey, a professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at Britain's University of Sheffield, in an essay last year. He sees two huge ethical hurdles in the way: One is the unproven ability of robotic weapons to discriminate between friend and foe, avoiding hitting civilians and other noncombatants. The other questions a computer's ability to judge "proportionate" force, enough to gain military advantage while minimizing civilian casualties.
Regardless, between this story and the British crime-fighting drone, one can conclude that the age of robots is upon us!
* New come on I should try on girls: "Do you have any contrarian in you? Would you like one?"
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
This is pretty interesting: Drone makes first UK 'arrest' as police catch car thief hiding under bushes
It has been nicknamed the flying saucepan and looks an unlikely weapon in the war against crime.
But yesterday it emerged that a suspected car thief had become the first person to be arrested in Britain thanks to the help of this miniature remote-controlled helicopter.
There's a video at the link.
I'm, at best, only mildly familiar with this Demetri Martin character who has a show on Comedy Central. I first saw this video on the season premiere for his show, then dug it up and watched it online a few times. It is "tears streaking down your face, serious concerns that you may die from suffocation" funny.Important Things with Demetri Martin Thursday, 10:00pm / 9:00c Attention - Bruce the Funny Dog Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Since my arms are fucked, I don't play guitar anywhere as much as I used to, but lately I have been thinking about picking technique. As everyone knows, picking technique is essential to playing fast, and playing fast guitar is essential to expressing your sexual potency. I once read a study that said 87% of people who do not play fast guitar are homosexuals*.
* Some might comment here that the libidinous stereotype of gay men would imply that they are, in fact, quite sexually potent. However, I've read innumerable scientific articles which state homosexuals are simply using this behavior to deflect away from their lack of virility which is caused by their lack of fast guitar playing. There is very little disagreement on this topic.
Someone recently reminded me of a rather obscure guitarist named Michael Angelo Batio who rose to prominence in the shred guitar world during the 80s. He was known for phenomenal speed (and thus, we can presume, was quite sexually potent and not a homosexual.) A couple weeks ago I dug up one of his videos on youtube. It's illuminating in that it does clarify exactly what drove his speed. Most people, with some practice, can competently play melodies at a decent clip on guitar. And most people, again with some practice, can play tremolo style, which is basically a technique of picking a string very quickly so that you get an instance of single note being played over and over (most people associate the sound with the Italian mandolin style.) However, the technique of tremolo picking is quite different from the technique people use to pick standard guitar melodies. With tremolo picking, you're holding the pick at an angle against the string, so that there's much less friction between the string in the pick. The upside is that it's much easier to slide the pick over the string repetitively. The downside is that you don't get that really meaty impact of the pick hitting the string -- that melodic "sting" which --- in its most dominant form --- we associate with blues guitar players like Steve Ray Vaughn or Albert King.
What Batio did was apply the concept of tremolo picking to play melodies --- in essence syncing up his fretting hand with his picking hand. I'm not crazy about the sound because it lacks the above-mentioned sting, but am enclosing a video below for your entertainment.
A while back I was blogging about (at least I think I was; I might've just been having a discussion in my head) my sense that there's a substantial portion of Americans* who aren't interested in advancing any particular political theory --- e.g. right or left -- but are basically interested in being bribed by politicians. In essence, they don't want their tax dollars used for projects that don't affect them, but they don't want you to touch their entitlements -- e.g. Medicare and Social Security. You could analyze this as some strange hybrid of conservatism and liberalism, but a more accurate term for it might just be plain old idiocy.
* I'm sure this applies to people of all nations, but I'm mainly thinking in terms of the U.S.
Anyway, I was just in line at the pharmacy picking up some medication for my dad, and overheard an interesting conversation that figures into this somehow... I'm not sure exactly how. At first, some women was complaining about the fact that we provide free health care to nations like Iraq and Afghanistan*. "Why are we spending money over there that we could use over here?" she asked. (I considered explaining to her that we had invaded those countries and destroyed their infrastructure, but you can never really win interjecting yourself into random arguments.) Then the conversation evolved when another woman complained about money that had been spent on the moon landing as opposed to "down here" (her words.) I can't totally condemn this --- in fact, I think I once made a similar point while complaining about the supposedly flawless legacy of JFK --- but it just seemed like an odd point to bring up.
* I think there's some truth to this claim, but it's overblown.
I'm not sure what to draw from this, and, of course, this is just one anecdotal conversation from a trio of mother hens, but it stuck in my head.
Monday, February 22, 2010
I'm just totally amazed that the fact that some guy who used to play a character called "Boner" on the 80s sitcom "Growing Pains" has gone missing is somehow vital, international news. And, everyone is wondering whether the guy killed himself. Let's see... he played a character called "Boner" on the show "Growing Pains"... what do you think?
If there is one question that I think should be asked in the world of political analysis and commentary that is not being asked, it's this: "Iraq: what happened?"
I don't mean specifics. I'm well aware that the country is still there and muddling through its various electoral and political processes. But four or five years ago, Iraq seem to be either a metaphorical tidal wave about to crash down on the shores of the world, or a beacon beaming out the transformational powers of war. It seemed like whatever was going to happen, it was going to be big --- a real moment in history.
But if the Iraq moment is over --- and I'm well aware that's a big if --- it's a moment that ended with a whimper, not a bang. The suicide bombings largely tapered off, the burning embers of civil war cooled and the country rather quietly slid off the newspaper headlines. I've said before that I'm not convinced the surge was the sole cause of the decline of violence in Iraq, but it clearly is part of the cause, and for that, McCain, the guy who basically prodded Bush to perform the surge, deserves credit.
I can't say I'm really surprised at the seeming short-term memory of both pundits and the general public, but it seems like somebody should be asking questions here. What actions averted the catastrophe that Iraq seemed poised to become?
| View these other exciting Acid Logic blogs... |
| Winkest Leak - by Lefty Political commentary from the left of the dial.font> |
| Social Memory Complex Thought provoking Libertarian musings from long time acid logic afficianado Jeremy. |
| Bona Notabilia by Tarryn New disturbing musings from AL's British correspondent. |
| Big Words I Know by Heart East Coast acid logic author Tom Waters penetrates the blogosphere with his cyber-screeds. |
| Rancor
and Disdain - By Cody Wayne A page devoted to daily revelatory thoughts, usually involving graphic references to sexual anatomy and the goo that said parts squirt, tales of real-life craziness, and often times referring to love and the collective consciousness of the Universe... |
| Break
The Mirror - By Jesss Morel Try your damndest to keep up with the visceral, tangential world of Jesss Morel. |
| Piss
and Vinegar - the Blog of Pete Moss Pete Moss makes home in a world few dare tread. A place of classic motorcycles, celebrity hobnobbing, drug fueled ruminations and an endless love affair with female genitalia. |
| Jihad
Against Cowardice: A Defense of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect An archived blog protesting ABC cancellation of Politically Incorrect. Contains an overview of some of the last shows. |