|
By
Wil Forbis
|
|
|
You want archives motherfucker? Check
this shiz-nit out: |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
This blog is now located at http://wilforbis.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://wilforbis.blogspot.com/rss.xml.
A lot of the uproar over this new Arizona illegal immigration law goes right past me. If the complaint is that it's a state stepping into the domain of the federal government --- e.g. immigration --- that seems legit but hardly something I can get too excited about. And certainly one would have to concede that the federal government has failed to fulfill its responsibilities in regards to dealing with illegal immigration. But a lot of the opposition occurred seems to be centered on concerns that the bill will lead to racial profiling. Do I think the bill will lead to increased racial profiling? Hell yes. Do I think racial profiling already occurs. Hell yes. Let's be honest, every law is subject to some abuse from law enforcement. Is this one likely to create more abuse, due to the specifics of the issue it's dealing with? Maybe, probably, but I'm not sure it will amount to substantially more abuse than other laws.
Part of my problem here is the just think that it's insane to think cops can do their job without some element of profiling, and, yes some of it's going to be based on race. Context matters and race is part of context.
Readers might recall a few months ago that I myself was hassled by cops who intimated that I might be dealing drugs. Am I oblivious to the fact that part of the reason they stopped me was that I was a long-haired guy wearing denim clothing (just like a hippie!)? Of course not. And I was and still am pissed at those cops, but part of me understands the trials of their job.
I guess what I'm looking for here is a little intellectual honesty. To claim that you'll be outraged unless cops are completely oblivious to race in their enforcement activities seems akin to saying you refuse to live in reality as it is.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
I've read the comic strip "Prickly City" for years and have been a little unclear on its political orientation. The two main characters represent the left and the right, and while the strip seems to skew rightward, it's not always apparent. Nonetheless, my presumption is that the author is basically conservative.
But this week's series of strips have been a bit of a surprise: they lambaste the tea party movement as being a bunch of conspiracy minded nuts and goons who have little understanding of what limited government really means.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
I mentioned in the comments that I was disappointed with "Kick-Ass." My reason is this: I was promised (in reviews and interviews) a movie that was about superheroes in the "real world" --- a reality where one cannot dive into a phalanx of bullets and survive. What I got was yet another standard superhero movie with violence and martial arts action that was acrobatically glorious but completely impossible.
I should be clear: I didn't hate the movie --- it did have some good laughs --- but it could've been better. It certainly wasn't a "reinvention of the superhero genre" as I heard one of its creators refer to it.
I've heard a bit about the fact that Roger Ebert panned the film, expressing contempt for its graphic violence and even walking up to the phrase "morally reprehensible" though not quite committing. And he's got a point. "Kick-Ass" is unusually violent --- I'm reminded of a scene in which the 11-year-old female vigilante "Hit Girl" manages to cripple an incoming henchmen in such a way that he falls chin down on his own shotgun and blows his head open with CGI viscera flying everywhere. Since, unlike Ebert, I'm entirely without any form of moral compass, I wasn't particularly shocked, but I did find such brutality odd. It's not the violence itself that seems out of place --- one need look no further than the recent "Punisher" films or any zombie film ever made for equitable scenes of carnage --- it's that this is violence perpetrated by and onto young people. We don't particularly mind when Conan sways into a group of armed guards and proceeds to decapitate everyone of them, but to see the same actions committed by a girl not old enough to wear makeup gives pause.
I should be perfectly clear: I think the effect of such violence on moviegoing youth is negligible. Since the dawn of cinema, various societal nannies have been saying that kids can't tell the difference between real and movie violence and that just strikes me as insane. Most of us have seen thousands of movie deaths by the time we're in our 20s; is such an experience really equitable to someone who survived war as a child?
Additionally, we need to a knowledge that there are different kinds of movie deaths. Certain movies make no bones about the fact that they're simple cartoon violence. Others purport to be more reality-based and ask the audience to take seriously the passing of certain characters. (I can recall expending several chuckles while watching the various Chuck Norris action flicks of the 80s where, after blowing away about 150 bad guys, Chuck would lose a comrade in arms and come close to tearing up. And it seemed the movie expected those of us in the audience to take it seriously.) But, with "Kick-Ass" it's a little unclear which world the film inhabits --- cartoon violence world, or reality violence world (or one of the many worlds in between)? That's where I think the movie fails. And it's disappointing because I think the fundamental premise --- what if superheroes operated in our world? --- is pretty interesting. Especially from the viewpoint of the bad guys. What really would drive someone to become a shotgun toting henchmen for a vicious mobster? Could that character be molded in such a way that the viewer really would mourn when he's finally dispatched by an 11-year-old ninja?
Monday, April 26, 2010
You know, I hadn't listened to any AC/DC in a while, and yesterday I put on "Back in Black" while driving. What an amazing album. You can really feel it invigorating you as the evil courses through your veins.
There's an interesting article in the new New Yorker (April 26, 2010) about one of my favorite topics: how the world of publishing is changing with the advent of digital books. One paragraph makes the point that the model the book publishing industry has been using is similar to the one the music industry has used.
Although critics argue that traditional book publishing takes too much money from authors, in reality the profits earned by the relatively small percentage of authors whose books make money essentially go to subsidizing less commercially successful writers. The system is inefficient, but it supports a class of professional writers, which might not otherwise exist.
Much like Aerosmith supporting the nameless loser bands who get picked up by major label and yet flop.
Of course, the point of the article is that this model is under attack. The development of e-books is driving down the cost of books, which means less money for everyone, including those "less commercially successful writers."
The article doesn't get into what I think could become a big concern: Digital book piracy. Digital books, like digital music, would seem ripe for file sharing. In theory, readers like the Kindle should only "read" licensed material, but hackers can easily get around that (they already have.)
Sunday, April 25, 2010
As is probably obvious, I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking lately about evolutionary theory --- specifically the question why certain behaviors are "rewarded" by evolution even when they aren't necessarily beneficial to the individual. One theorized answer is that evolution offers its rewards on the level of DNA --- a mother who is willing to sacrifice herself for her children is really ensuring that her genetic material survives.
This opens up an interesting question: should I, as an individual, attempt to eliminate or override urges for behaviors that make no sense on an intellectual level?
The most obvious pointless urge would be the urge for sex. On an intellectual level, it makes no sense: what's the point of some guy sticking his yahoo in some girl's hoohah? The pursuit of sex also often has significant downsides like diseases, pregnancy and having to listen to some chick yammer on about who she thinks is going to win this season's American Idol. Wouldn't it make sense to simply eliminate this urge from our lives?
The problem, of course, is that it's highly pleasurable. But this pleasure is really the evolutionary programming to ensure that we procreate. (I'd argue that we pursue sex for more than simple pleasure. We're social creatures who want to ascend the social hierarchy, and sexual conquest --- measured differently for men and women --- helps us ascend that hierarchy. Everybody wants to hang out with the dude who nails lots of chicks, or the woman who married the super rich doctor.)
It struck me today that the urge I don't have is the desire of children. Wouldn't that seem contrary to evolutionary programming? Not necessarily --- it's not the urge to nurture children that creates children, it's the urge to stick your yahoo in some girl's hoohah. The nurturing children behavior might be beneficial after the children are around, but even then, probably more so on the female's part than the male's. There are all sorts of species where the guy basically leaves the minute he's impregnated the female (or, in the case of praying mantises, gets killed) and it doesn't stop those species from surviving.
However, we all know I'm not going to stop having sex, if I ever get lucky enough to have it again. So what other biological urges should I attempt to eliminate from my life? As mentioned above, the urge to ascend the social hierarchy seems ingrained in our DNA. And it has significant rewards --- if you're hanging out in the player's club, you get all the fringe benefits. But at what cost? In order to ascend the structure that we now call "society", you make significant sacrifices. You have to keep your contrarian opinions to yourself, you have to be polite to people who are clearly brain-dead morons. I'm not sure the sacrifices required, which often don't even guarantee you placement at the top of the social hierarchy, are worth it.
I long fantasized, as I'm sure many people have, of discovering that I have AIDS and then driving around with a baseball bat in my car. I'd wait for the first guy to honk at me inappropriately, or tailgate me, or whatever, then grind my car to a stop, remove the baseball bat and seriously fuck that guy's car up (and him if he got out of the car.)
Why is AIDS and essential part of that fantasy? Because that's the key that would release me from my connection to the social hierarchy --- at that point, it's unlikely I'm going to ascend it anyway, so I might as well have some fun.
This post turned out a lot longer than originally planned.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The more I think about it, I think the question of animal rights is an interesting conundrum for any moral system.
Most moral people would agree to the statement that "people should not kill other people." But we don't abide by the rule "people should not kill animals." And we also understand that not only can animals kill other animals, they need to in order to live.
So this opens up the question, "why can people kill animals but not humans?" Generally speaking the answer is along the lines of the argument that animals are "lesser" creatures. Sam Harris talks about this in his speech on science and morality, basically stating that we know animals have less of an inner life --- their intelligence and emotional state is not equal to our's. And generally, we do award animals some kind of rights based on their intelligence -- we look down on people who kill a dog, but aren't really concerned about people who kill a bug.
But what are we really saying? It's all right to kill creatures who will never advanced beyond a certain IQ? It's all right to kill creatures whose emotional life never develops past a certain point? What are the magic numbers here? And, if those numbers could even be formulated, why those numbers?
And how much of our formulation of the rule that people can kill animals is based on the fact that certain animals, when prepared correctly, taste delicious?
Lindsay Lohan is suspect in case of stolen watch
That makes sense; she's living on borrowed time.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I finally saw this "Up in the Air" movie. I thought it had some funny moments, but it really didn't resonate with me. It's not that I'm tired of movies saying that unless you have a family and meaningful relationships, your life is worthless, it's that I'm tired of that message being delivered as if it's some sort of revolutionary statement that isn't being broadcast into our brains 24/7 in modern society.
Also Something just seemed exploitative about the film. To release a movie in the middle of a recession about how crummy it is to be fired feels... "dirty." I'm not saying the producers did it for the money, but rather for some sense that they would be rewarded in ethereal karma tokens which seems sleazier than doing it for money.
There is commentary and links here implying that Senator Lindsey Graham might be gay. This is entirely news to me; how long have these rumors been circulating?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Long-time readers doubtless know my views on rap music: if it ain't gangsta, I'm not interested. I certainly have no time for this so-called "positive" rap which preaches personal introspection and community building as opposed to random gunplay and whoring.
I do have one exception to this rule: Guru's mid-90s album "Jazzmatazz Volume 1." One part Cornell West lecture, one part serious grooves, "Jazzmatazz" found a lot of play on my CD player 10 or 12 years ago.
As such, I was shocked to learn that Guru died of cancer recently at the young age of 43.
Now, Guru was most famous for being part of a rap duo called Gang Starr. In a letter released after his death, Guru specifically denounces his former partner.
Writing of DJ Premier in the letter, Guru added: "I do not wish my ex-DJ to have anything to do with my name likeness, events tributes etc. I had nothing to do with him in life for over seven years and want nothing to do with him in death. Solar has my life story and is well informed on my family situation, as well as the real reason for separating from my ex-DJ."
Sounds like there's a motion picture in there somewhere.
Monday, April 19, 2010
An interesting monster would be a vampire who instead of drinking human blood, drinks human urine. You could have a story about one of these sensitive emo goth boys who's always been tormented by jocks, and one day meets a well-dressed vampire. Then, later in the story, some of the jocks are coming up on the both of them, and the kid unleashes his vampire friend on the jocks. And the vampire says, "and now, I will drink your urine!" And the jocks are like, "well, okay," and whip it out in and start whizzing in the vampire's mouth. And the vampire is rolling on the ground licking urine off it and saying, "yes! yessss! Sweet urine!" And then the jocks turn to the goth kid and say, "looks like your fag vampire turned out to be a bust." And then they kick his ass.
In this post MP3 era of music, many people have commented that technology has gotten to a point where it's easy to create decent sounding music on a simple home computer. And many have argued that this is one more nail in the coffin of the record industry --- the means of production are now in the hands of the masses. I've been thinking about this for some time and wonder whether the music industry could attempt to save itself by notching up the quality of music it produces.
Of course, in the context of music, the word "quality" is somewhat vague. The various mental pygmies who inhabit the domain of punk rock will likely argue that mainstream music, by definition, cannot be quality music because the inner essence of the artist has been smothered by the tentacles of corporate greed etc. And even I often criticize pop music for its bland, predictable songwriting. But I think in the realm of production and arranging we can generally agree on some shared notion of quality. Most people understand that George Martin's work with the Beatles was a significant improvement over rock production up until that point. He added sounds, tonal textures and arrangement ideas that the genre had not seen. (Yes, many garage rock aficionados will dispute this point, and they are cordially invited to blow me.) Could pop music of the modern age see a George Martin-esque burst? I would argue that we are in the midst of one. In the past year I've noticed a distinct improvement in the "sound" of pop music. For production perspective, there is a richness of sound that seems quite new --- intriguing tonal textures featuring psychedelic electronic beeps. Crunchy guitars have the impact of a full symphony. And there's a lot of detail in the background of modern music --- strange robotic bird calls panning through the stereo spectrum. Probably the best example of all this is the music of Lady Gaga. I find her songwriting rather pedestrian, but the sound of her music is appealing, and its production is certainly outside the abilities of a weekend musician.
Is it enough to save the recording industry? I don't know... probably not... but it may stave off the industry's obsolescence for a few years.
(In reference to the preceding paragraph, I should make a note that I don't think the recording industry is ever going to really die, but it may require such radical alteration that it it will no longer resemble what it once was.)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
I been doing a lot of reading on neurology lately and am struck by a thought that's not particularly original but seems irrefutable: the human brain and a computer are a lot alike.
This is true in the most obvious sense: memory. As humans, we have short-term memory ("what I had for dinner last night") and long-term memory ("the first time I had sex.") Our short-term memories are always there on the surface, easily accessible, whereas we have to dig for our long-term memories. Computers, of course, have RAM (the contents of the Word document you are currently editing) and the hard drive (the contents of documents you do not have open, but may be accessed.)
Now, there are some interesting differences between our brains and computers. The point when our short-term memories cease to become short-term and get saved to our brain's hard drive is vague, whereas with a computer program it's obvious: it's when you click the save button (or auto-save is fired off etc.) We also have memories that seem lost forever, until we come across a particular smell or sound or image, and they are back, crystal-clear.
Why hold information in two compartments? In the case of computers, the reason is resource allocation. It takes a lot more electricity to store things in RAM than it does to write them to the hard drive. I suspect a similar case is true with the human brain. (The brain uses 20% of the human metabolism.) Just imagine if every fact and experience you'd ever known had to be maintained at the conscious level --- it makes your head hurt.
We generally understand that our brain and computers exist to process information. So the question becomes, "How does that information get in there?" Here the parallels continue. The computer is more limited --- basically, there's a keyboard, the mouse, network connectivity (e.g. the Internet and general filesharing) and new tools being developed, voice dictation being one. Let's call these tools "input devices." The human brain also has input devices: the eyes, the ears, the nose and all the other five senses. (Some have argued that there is a sixth sense controlled by the vestibular system which maintains our sense of balance in a manner similar to the way that the auditory system allows us to hear.) The brain uses the body's input devices to gather information for processing. Using ears as an example, sound vibrations cause tiny hairs in our ears to vibrate at the same speed. Our auditory system then converts that to a "signal" that is sent to the brain. The brain "decodes" that signal as sound.
Here's a tangential rumination: could we rewire our input devices and brains to, as hippies so often desire, "hear the colors, and see the sounds, man!"? Obviously the technology is not currently available, but it would seem theoretically possible to reroute the signal from our auditory system to the part of our brain that decodes signals from our eyes. To effectively say something like, "when a vibration at 310 Hz comes in, show the color yellow." And to do similar rewiring to our sense of smell, taste etc.
What does one do with the realization that our brains are merely biological computers, in some ways far better than standard computers, in some ways far worse? It seems obvious that our goal should be to build a giant supercomputer to make all decisions for modern society. And this supercomputer should also be in charge of an army of robots who deal out punishment to any who oppose him.
This is obvious.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
It struck me recently that there's an interesting parallel between events in my personal life and current events in the world, a parallel I would summarized as "a distrust in institutions." For reasons that are too lengthy to get into here, I've been personally becoming more and more disenchanted with doctors and the medical industry. Simultaneously, I think people in general are losing faith in financial managers, investment banks and the "money industry*," and the Catholic Church.
*Of course, people's faith in the money industry has always been shaky. But, as much as people deride it, they keep on investing.
Now, I never had faith in the Catholic Church, so I can't speak to that, but I can't say that the more I read about Wall Street shenanigans, the more prone I become to taking my limited investments and converting them to cash to be stored in a tin box under my bed. It's not that I doubt their competency, it's that I distrust their actions. How do I know these people aren't taking my money and investing it in packages they know will fail at their personal gain? (Which, generally speaking, is what John Paulson, the investor at the heart of the Goldman Sachs scandal did.)
There's been some discussion recently of a "faith instinct:" the idea that people are evolutionarily primed to believe in things they have no concrete proof of. I might argue that this explains our belief in these various institutions --- institutions that seem to fall far short of expectation. Or to put it another way, our "faith instinct" makes us so forgiving of these institutions that members of such institutions slowly start to realize they can get away with more and more (or perform less and less.)
Of course, part of life is losing faith in the original institution: your parents. When you're a kid, they're close to gods and you can't imagine anything they can't do. As you grow up, you realize they're simply human. (Or, in the case of many of my readers, alien.)
This loss of faith is disarming when you realize you can only depend so much on these people or institutions. But there's a certain empowerment that comes with it as well. You realize that not only must you take responsibility for yourself, you can.
Unless you're a moron, in which case you're fucked.
I found this little tidbit, in a story about the recently unveiled SEC lawsuit against Goldman Sachs, interesting:
The SEC built its case in part on e-mails in which a Goldman vice president, Fabrice Tourre, now 31, appears to gloat about the coming investor losses.
"The whole building is about to collapse any time now," Tourre wrote. "Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice] standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities [sic]!!!"
So one of the people culpable for eternally damning the name of Goldman Sachs is
a) in possession of the emotional maturity of a teenage boy,
b) prone to advertising his own limited intellect,
c) incapable of using spellcheck.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Today's all penis Friday takes on religious aura. 'Phallic' art sparks row ahead of Pope's Malta visit
The mayor of a town in Malta has called for a "phallic" sculpture displayed close to the main airport to be removed ahead of the Pope's visit this weekend.
...
"The object... is not the most fitting way in which to greet the Pope, especially by what is considered to be the most Catholic country in the world," Mr Schembri was quoted by the Times of Malta as saying.
I guess you haven't been reading newspapers Mr. Schembri.
An interesting idea for a movie occurred to me this morning. Across the world, a series of strange attacks occur, during which seemingly normal people lose control of their body and kill someone. Eventually it's discovered that all these people fell prey to a secret cult of chiropractors who use their chiropractic technique to "program" people to perform certain actions at certain times. Then, a new wave of attacks occur by people claiming to have visited the same chiropractors, but governments of the world can never be sure whether these people are lying or not. Since there's no way to tell whether these people are truly guilty, the governments of the world decide that murder can no longer be illegal, and society descends into savagery.
This might be a good comeback vehicle for Ben Affleck.
Update: how about this for title?: DR. EVIL*
Then, at the bottom of the movie poster in small type: * Of course, chiropractors aren't real doctors.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
This TED talk by Sam Harris, alleging that science can discern morality has been churning around in my head for weeks now. And the more I think about it, the more I think the implications of what he's saying are radical and potentially game changing (were his ideas to be adopted by society, which is highly unlikely.)
The crux of his argument is this:
* There is no God or universal postulate we can look to for absolute moral values.
* Moral behavior is behavior that causes mankind to "flourish." (Of course, what "flourish" means exactly is somewhat ethereal and Harris acknowledges this, but generally speaking we all understand that Western society is flourishing more than the Taliban.)
* Science is getting better and better about measuring when individual humans and humans as a whole are "flourishing." (Though I don't think he specifically mentions it, I suspect he's partly referencing our ability to measure pleasure states of the brain etc.)
At first, this sort of talk doesn't seem particularly radical. But what's implied here is a move away from thinking of morality in terms of rights, towards an idea of working towards outcomes that benefit the majority. To some degree, we already see this in our culture --- eminent domain for example. But this logic can be taken to interesting, uncomfortable extremes -- if some person comes down with a contagious virus that for some reason will not kill them, but will kill anyone near them, is the moral action to kill that person and not risk the general populace? (According to the old Judge Dredd comics, it would be.)
Another area that might be affected is the debate over inequality. There is much hand wringing about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. There was an interesting article in the New Yorker recently essentially noting that the rich are really no happier than the poor --- they're essentially equal in their pleasure states. Now, there's a lot caveats to be thrown out here -- how well can we really measure happiness, and the fact that poor people who get cancer and can't afford treatment are probably measurably less happy than rich people who get cancer and can. But this also opens up a debate as to whether or not societies should redistribute wealth as much as they should redistribute "happiness" or "the ability to flourish." Should we, as some of Harris's critics allege he is arguing, pump happy chemicals into the water supply? Are we morally bound to do so?
It's also worth contemplating that much human progress has been built on human suffering. One day, a scientist's wife may get cancer and die, causing him much grief, but pushing him to find a cure for cancer. If we're all walking around in continuous state of pleasure, we would lose our drive.
I should note: I disagree with Harris on some pretty big issues, but I'm keeping mum for now.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
I generally think of Ayn Rand as someone who wore her hair too tight, but if she got one thing right it's that altruism is an inherently selfish act. By this, I mean people perform altruistic acts to feel good about themselves, not to actually help others.
This struck me while thinking about a lot of the singer-songwriter types that perform songs that are supposed to cast light upon various victims of injustice... the kind of thing Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen would do. I would posit that these performers are sympathy vampires --- they sing a sad song about West Virginians trapped in a coal mine and we all feel bad and go out and buy the performer's album. These artists are directly profiting from misery in the world. They are worse than a thousand Hitlers. They are worse than a hundred puppies dressed as Hitler.
Another day, another pedophile Catholic priest!
On other occasions, the priest manipulated the teen into performing oral sex, once by leveraging his gift of a car and another time pulling a revolver on him, according to the suit.
Well, you can't buy someone a car every time you want a blow job.
| 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. |