Friday, September 19, 2008

Imogen Heap - Beauty in the breakdown

And now, a paean to Imogen Heap!

She's someone I often listen to and think: "Wait a minute . . . isn't this the kind of music that's meant for teenage girls, not me?"

But several years ago I was listening to an interview with Ben Folds on the radio, and he said something that made an impression on me: you should choose the music you listen to purely based on what you want to listen to, regardless of whether it's a reflection of your personality. I try to live by that.

On that note, Imogen Heap has written what I imagine will be two of the most enduring songs of this decade: "Hide and Seek" and "Let Go."


1. "Hide and Seek" — First, here's the official/studio version:




Then there's this live performance (done for a radio show), in which you can see her transforming her own a cappella voice into the 21st-century, computerized equivalent of a Renaissance madrigal:




2. "Let Go" — Here's the studio version by Frou Frou (a duo comprising her and a producer/co-songwriter):




I recommend listening to that version first, then watching this live performance, which reveals the skeleton of the song:



There are few songs I find more evocative of my time in Ithaca, NY than "Let Go": ice cold but inviting.

Speaking of production, she's not just a singer, songwriter, and pianist; she did just about everything for her latest album, aptly titled Speak for Yourself. Not only did she compose, perform, and produce all the music as a one-woman band (as it says on her website, "armed with Pro-Tools, some geeky toys and a room full of instruments ranging from a cello to carpet tubes"), but she also started her own record company to release it, and even did the artwork and graphic design.


3. "Just for Now" — In the clip below, you can see her single-handedly building up a whole song from scratch. Seeing her use electronic loops to layer melody upon melody on the spot is inspiring.

There was a Metafilter post specifically about this clip, which got a big response from people who'd never heard her music. Sample:

I've listened to this about ten times now and am still exhilarated and amazed. When everything else about the world depresses you—when everyone in politics seems to be taking the easy way out and when the plastic packaging of pop culture deadens your soul, this is precisely the antidote. It made my day, and thanks again.


If you want to have that version of the song in your iPod (the arrangement is dramatically diferent from the album version), iTunes has a similar performance in something called Live Session EP — iTunes Exclusive.


4. "Daylight Robbery" — This is a taste of what one of her concerts is like. The video clip below was uploaded by a fan, but Imogen Heap herself has specifically plugged it (in one of the countless instances of how content uploaded by people who weren't involved in its creation actually benefits the creators).

It reminds me of a comment made by Debussy. He said that some people achieve greatness through excellent taste, and some achieve greatness through bad taste. And he said that Mozart is an example of the former, while Beethoven is an example of the latter. Well, not many people would agree with him about Beethoven, or mention Imogen Heap in the same breath as any of those greats (though I just did). But the idea of "greatness through bad taste" comes to mind when I hear this song.

If you had just described this music to me on paper before I'd heard it, I might not have given it a chance. Rationally, I shouldn't even like it. But . . .




I highly recommend these albums:

Imogen Heap — Speak for Yourself

Frou Frou — Details


(Photo by Kris Krug.)

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

More of the greatest moments from the 2008 presidential race (up to 99)

And now: the latest installment of my ongoing list of the greatest moments from the 2008 race for president.

In case you missed them the first time, here are the previous installments:
1 - 44 (on the path to becoming #44)
45 - 77

As always, I've mostly given just quotes without attributions so that the list can double as a fun trivia game to test your campaign knowledge, if you so desire.

The new ones are mostly from the general election, with a few stragglers from the primaries that were just too good not to include:



78. "Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."
[blog]

79. "Did I mention he's black?"
[video]

80. Obama kicks off the general election by reaching out to whites
[video]

81. "We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies."
[video] + [commentary]

82. "How do we beat the bitch?" "... That's an excellent question."
[video]

83. "That's not change we can believe in!"
[video, starting at 1:20 and interspersed with commentary]

84.  "[She] came to us with news that, as parents, we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned."
[story]

85. "That old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran'? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb..."
[video]

86. "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" "In what respect, Charlie?"
[video + transcript]

87. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
[story]

88. "I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere."
---> "I was for infrastructure being built in the state, and it's not inappropriate for a mayor or a governor to request and to work with ... their Congressmen, their Congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget ... a share of the federal budget for infrastructure. What I supported was a link between the airport and the community, and we have found that link now."
[video]

89. "I just gotta make clear: I got tested with Michelle."
[video]

90. "Learning about sex before learning to read?!"
[video]

91. "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."
[video]

92. "I wanna cut his nuts off."
[video]

93. awkwardest pause ever
[video]

94. "He's the biggest celebrity in the world."
[video]

95. "I think -- I'll have my staff get to you. It's condominiums where ... I'll have them get to you."
[audio] + [story]

96. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
[story]

97. "I've been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years, as anybody who's been around us knows. ... So the story's just false."
[video]

98. "Suppose for example you're a voter. And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote? [pause] This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
[story]

99. "I want you to ask yourselves: were you just in this campaign for me?"
[video + transcript]


(Photo of the Obamas and Bidens from Obama. Photo of Palin with troops originally from a government site and preserved by A Second Hand Conjecture. Photo of McCain on TV by sloomis08.)

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Thanks again for the bridge to nowhere

Yesterday I pointed out that, as the New York Times apparently didn't realize, Sarah Palin is still supporting the so-called bridge to nowhere.

But I also said something is bothering me about what the whole bridge-to-nowhere debacle says about the state of the race.

This Slate article is a good starting point: even discussing earmarks at all could be implicitly forfeiting a more important argument to McCain:

The Obama campaign has been working hard to make an issue of the Bridge to Nowhere, and the McCain campaign doesn't mind. Aides believe any discussion about earmarks is one McCain is winning. Instead of talking about taxes or the larger economy and whether McCain's policies will be a change from Bush's, Obama is arguing over a $16 billion portion of the budget where McCain has actually been a force for change. Arguing over earmarks shrinks the field of debate into one where he has a long track record. Obama has waged no significant battles with Democrats.
Of course, almost any issue is an issue Obama has no "long track record" on, because Obama doesn't have much experience, period. But that obviously can't be much consolation for Obama supporters (of whom I am one).

I have to wonder: could it be that Obama just isn't very comfortable talking policy specifics, and that's why he's chosen the easier tack of pointing out the falsehoods in McCain/Palin's assertions instead of questioning their basic economic premises?

Jon Chait has pointed out that (1) earmarks just aren't very important, and (2) the McCain campaign seems unwilling to single out specific earmarks for criticism aside from the bridge to nowhere. Presumably that's because if voters were faced with the reality of what earmarks are really about, their reaction would be, "Hey, that actually sounds pretty good!" (That's why earmarks increased when they became more transparent.)

Big picture: McCain's position on this is pretty weak, and Obama himself has procured a lot of earmarks. So why doesn't Obama proactively admit this and justify his position to the people?

To be clear, I'm not accusing Obama of being deceptive on this, since he's actually been forthcoming in divulging the relevant information about his record. A couple examples chosen semi-randomly from his website:
AIDSCARE, Inc., for general operating support, $750,000 -- AIDSCARE is a non-profit, non-sectarian organization that provides housing and care for homeless children, families and adults living with advanced HIV/AIDS in the Chicago Area. ...

Chicago State University, for research into unmanned aerial systems, $5,000,000 -- Funding will be used to improve the effectiveness of the military's unmanned aerial systems by replacing conventional power supply systems with fuel cell technology packages specifically made for mobile robotics systems.
How hard could it be for the Obama campaign to talk about federal funding of these programs in a positive light?

(A caveat: without having scoured through every single one of Obama's statements, I can't say for sure that he hasn't made the argument I'm describing. But I assume the campaign hasn't emphasized it, since I haven't heard it. Also, he was asked about his record on earmarks in one of the primary debates, and I vaguely remember thinking his answer was weak.)

There's a broader point in all this: why does Obama keep letting his campaign get lured into quicksand by McCain? It's seeming more and more like every time Obama tries out some new initiative or campaign strategy, McCain takes it and turns it into something negative. Off the top of my head: the choice of setting for his convention speech ... the emphasis on his "community organizer" background ... the "lipstick on a pig" critique of McCain's message ... the decision to choose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton ...

For each of those cases, you can easily defend Obama's decision if you want to. But isn't there an undeniable pattern? (1) Obama does something that seems like a good idea; (2) McCain gets the better of him somehow; (3) the Obama campaign uses up a lot of energy and media coverage reacting to McCain; (4) the whole thing ends up looking like a big mess that neither candidate really won or lost.

Could it be that Obama is just not such a great candidate, and that if the nominee had been one of any number of other Democratic primary candidates (including "candidates" who didn't even choose to run but surely considered it), that person would have been as effective in the general election if not more so? I've resisted this conclusion for a long time, but I've been increasingly thinking that it's simply too obvious to ignore. More about this soon ...

Monday, September 15, 2008

Hey, thanks for the bridge to nowhere!

I usually stay away from rank punditry and campaign-related error correction on this blog, but I have to point this out...

The New York Times had a story on Friday that seemed to be very hard-hitting against Sarah Palin and John McCain's stormy relationship with the truth. Most of the article was about McCain's lying ads, but there was also this:

[W]hat Ms. Palin has often told audiences about pulling the plug on the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, an expensive federal project to build a bridge to a sparsely populated Alaskan island that became a symbol of wasteful federal spending. “I told Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska,” she said this week in Virginia.

But her position was more like “please” before it became “no thanks.” Ms. Palin supported the bridge project while running for governor, and abandoned it after it became a national scandal and Congress said the state could keep the money for other projects. As a mayor and governor, she hired lobbyists to request millions in federal spending for Alaska. In an ABC News interview on Friday with Charles Gibson, Ms. Palin largely stuck to her version of the events.
Here's the problem: while that appears to be the NYT going after Sarah Palin and McCain for their lies about Palin's record, the Times is actually going too easy on them.

All the Times says is: she originally supported the bridge, before she rejected the earmarks.

That itself would be bad, but that's not the whole story.

Assuming that this news story is accurate (link via TPM), Palin is still, to this day, supporting the bridge to nowhere:
Gov. Palin’s administration acknowledges that it is still pursuing a project that would link Ketchikan to its airport -- with the help of as much as $73 million in federal funds earmarked by Congress for the original project.

"What the media isn't reporting is that the project isn't dead," Roger Wetherell, spokesman for Alaska’s Department of Transportation, said. In a process begun this past winter, the state’s DOT is currently considering (PDF) a number of alternative solutions (five other possible bridges or three different ferry routes) to link Ketchikan and Gravina Island.

The DOT has not yet developed cost estimates for those proposals, Wetherell said, but $73 million of the approximately $223 million Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) earmarked for the bridge in 2005 has been set aside for the Gravina Access Project.
So, this is yet more fuel for the argument that the Obama campaign seems to be testing out, albeit somewhat haltingly so far: "John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election." [UPDATE: Right after I posted that, this Obama ad debuted.]

You know, I'm all in favor of them making that argument ... but at the same time, there's something about this whole focus on earmarks that doesn't inspire me with tons of confidence in Obama. Stop back tomorrow, and I'll explain ...

UPDATE: Continued here.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

"I hate hate hate hate the new SiteMeter."

ALERT: This blog post is now outdated -- see "UPDATE #3" below.

--

That's my mom's reaction to SiteMeter's revamped website, which debuted today. And I fully agree.

For those who don't know, SiteMeter is the website you get to if you click the little icon at the very bottom of the right-hand sidebar of this blog. It's the most popular service for giving people information about their website's traffic.

Or I should say, it was the most popular such service. I have to assume everyone will desert it now. And I just have a free account; as for the paying users, I can't imagine they'd want to actually spend money on this.

If you search for "sitemeter" on Google Blog Search right now, you get blogger after blogger complaining about the redesign. A representative sample of blog post titles:

I Hate The New Sitemeter

Bye-bye SiteMeter

The New Sitemeter is much much worse

New Sitemeter Really Sucks

They've ruined SiteMeter

The new Sitemeter is useless

Grrrr!
A lot of people are saying the main new feature they'd like to see is an option to use the old design.

This blogger is immediately setting to work on programming a new traffic-tracking site for his wife's blog. He says:
My wife loves looking through the SiteMeter stats on her blog.... Today she was frustrated to find she can no longer access those stats. SiteMeter redid their user interface for free accounts, so that it is very difficult to actually access the stats. I waded through it for a while trying to find the stats, and someone as computer illiterate as my wife would never find it.

So, I told I'd have to build her a traffic meter. She jumped in glee that I'd be able to do that....

In the mean time SiteMeter will be gone since if the stats are unreadable, it's of no real purpose anymore.
Of course, that last sentence is what it's all about. SiteMeter seems to have failed to realize the purpose of their own website -- they were too distracted by frills, toys, gizmos, gimmicks.

I'm not seeing any positive comments from bloggers.

Well, I have seen an occasional comment along the lines of "Yes, it's prettier, but it's harder to use." But that's wrong! It's not prettier. It's a lot fancier. But that's not the same thing. The old version was a classic example of a basic, well-functioning website. It wasn't beautiful, but at least it was simple, and simplicity counts for a lot. The redesign has no focus. There are no orderly visual motifs that organize the information in a way that helps you understand what's being presented to you.

The type is extremely small, bordering on unreadable, and it can't be enlarged. It's like they didn't test this out on anyone before they launched it.

On top of all that, everything is slower (presumably because it now uses Flash). I'd be fine with that if it were a trade-off for real features. But the redesigned SiteMeter doesn't have "features" in the sense of "things you'd want to use."

I can't believe there are people who actually got paid to create this redesign and recommend implementing it. Why wasn't there anyone in charge who stepped in and said, "Wait, we can't do this -- it's just not good enough"?

What a huge mistake.

Time to figure out Google Analytics ...


UPDATE #1:

A commenter over at my mom's site has some insight into the "What were they thinking?" question:
This type of change is the sign of a program manager trying to justify his salary. I've been seeing it all the time at the software companies I work at.

Note that by putting it into Flash, the program manager makes this content inaccessible to people with visual acuity issues. But hey, pretty colors! ...

Truly, young software developers are the most selfish and self-absorbed people in the world.
And this other commenter sums up the whole thing as concisely as possible:
The New Coke of websites!


UPDATE #2:

I've added StatCounter. (Thanks to the commenter on my mom's blog who recommended it.)

You can see the StatCounter near the top of the sidebar of this blog. (If it's not there when you're reading this, check the very bottom of the screen -- I might move it later.)

I've just spent a few minutes browsing some of the features, and I'm tentatively convinced that StatCounter is even better than the old SiteMeter design, and a fortiori better than the new-and-destroyed SiteMeter. For instance, you can see the total percentages of how much traffic you're getting from each search term and referring site, whereas SiteMeter gives this info only to those with paid accounts; if you have a free SiteMeter account, you can also see those data, but only listed individually for each visitor rather than aggregated into percentages.

Again, that's just something I've noticed in the first few minutes -- I'll report back later on how I ended up liking StatCounter. But I have no doubt that it's better than the new SiteMeter.


UPDATE #3:

Well, SiteMeter listened to us! They're changing it back.

They "apologize for the botched rollout," and they claim that future redesigns will be done smoothly.

But wow, I've never lost total confidence in a website so suddenly. I wonder whether most SiteMeter users will accept the quick correction to the problem, or whether this has permanently undermined their confidence in SiteMeter.

In my case, that won't matter, though, because SiteMeter has given me an excuse to check out competing sites by so thoroughly screwing up their own site. And it seems pretty clear that StatCounter, not SiteMeter, is the way to go. I mentioned some of its advantages over SiteMeter in the previous update. The statistics are comprehensive and aggregated instead of just piecemeal, though you still have the option to see the piecemeal data if you want. I also see that the free account shows you the past 500 visitors, which is 5 times as many as SiteMeter shows. [CORRECTION: I believe StatCounter just shows you the past 500 pageviews, not visitors -- so that's slightly less than I thought, but still much better than SiteMeter.]

So as of today, you'll only be seeing the StatCounter counter on this blog, not the SiteMeter -- thanks to SiteMeter!

Friday, September 12, 2008

I'm not here. This isn't happening. I'm not here...

I usually do a music post on Fridays, but it seems a bit gaudy after the September 11 post.

So here's a song for you: "How to Disappear Completely." (Lyrics.)

Radiohead couldn't have been writing this about the attacks, because the song came out in 2000. But with its eerie pall and relentless trudge, it sounds like it was written about that day.


Thursday, September 11, 2008

When the fire was lit - TNR on 9/11

I'm glad to see that The New Republic has dredged up some of its old pieces conveying "the immediate reaction" to the September 11 attacks.

Here are two articles that I still remember making an impression on me:

1. Fault Lines, by Peter Beinart (Oct. 1, 2001)

Sample:

[P]erhaps the most pitiful thing about [Robert] Fisk and The Nation's efforts to rationalize bin Laden's hatred of the United States is that they don't even correspond to what bin Laden himself says. . . . In bin Laden's mind, America's greatest offense — by far — is its military presence in his home country of Saudi Arabia. . . . And that's a harder line for Western leftists to peddle. Because bin Laden isn't upset at the United States for bolstering Riyadh's oppressive policies — after all, the Saudi government's views on individual freedom and the status of women roughly mirror his own. Bin Laden is upset simply because non-Muslims live in the Holy Land around Mecca and Medina. His first priority is banishing Christians and Jews from Saudi Arabia. And his second priority is banishing Christians and Jews from every other Muslim country. As he told ABC News in 1998, "Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers, and especially the Arabian Peninsula." . . .

If Fisk and The Nation really want to argue that America brought the World Trade Center attack on itself, they shouldn't delude themselves. They are not defending the Palestinians' right to a state or the Iraqis' right to medicine. They are defending a Muslim's right not to live with a non-Muslim.

2. How to Fight, by Eliot Cohen (Sept. 24, 2001)

Sample:
We will pay a price in convenience and even, perhaps, in the full scope of our personal liberties. We will spend more time waiting in line at airports, find access to government offices more difficult, and quite likely submit to more intrusive monitoring by police and counterintelligence than we have known since the early years of the cold war. We may come to understand, at least in our big cities, the experience of Israelis today or of Londoners several years ago, when IRA bombs meant not being able to go into a cinema without having one's belongings carefully searched. Welcome to the world of omnipresent video cameras, retinal scanners, and perhaps even national identity cards.
Cohen concludes this essay by quoting Winston Churchill's response to the attacks on Pearl Harbor:
Silly people—and there were many, not only in enemy countries—might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before—that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate."
In the last sentence of the article, Cohen adds his own sentiment to Churchill's:
The fire has been lit.

"Do you see what's happening?"

There's only been one day in my life when I could get a phone call, hear "Do you see what's happening?" as the first sentence from the person calling me, and, without having any context aside from being in America, know exactly what it was about.

I'm sure there have been other events in United States history when that would have also been understood — the assassination of JFK or MLK. But those were before my time.

And those were deaths of single individuals. As sad as it is for a sitting president to die, it's bound to happen sometimes. People die, and we need to have a way of dealing with it. But we should never have needed to deal with our greatest city being torn down.

Commentators on the right and left (William Safire, Matthew Yglesias) have compared the deaths in those attacks to car accident statistics. More people die in car accidents each month in the United States than died in the attacks.

Well, I think that's wrong on a lot of levels:

1. It's easy to focus on the deaths you know about; it's harder, but equally important, to focus on the hidden deaths that you can't see or that haven't even happened. The terrorists didn't go to all that effort "just" to kill 3,000 people. The fact that such a relatively small number died while so many more escaped is amazing. Tens of thousands of people escaped the World Trade Center. The terrorists foolishly attacked shortly before 9 a.m., when many people hadn't gotten to work yet. One of the four planes didn't even strike its target. They were trying, and are still trying, to do a lot more damage than they did on September 11.

It's common to use "3,000 deaths" as a shorthand for "the extreme consequences that can result from terrorism." But this number is (understandably) used for its emotional resonance, not because of any genuine numerical exactitude. The September 11 attacks have already happened; we can't change that. We need to be worrying about the number of people killed in the next terrorist attack, and there's no telling what that number will be. It could be 3, or 300, or 30,000, or 300,000.


2. Yes, only a tiny proportion of deaths are due to terrorism, but it doesn't follow that terrorism should be a negligible concern. As impolitic as it may be to point this out in our "culture of life," some deaths are more worth accepting than others.

We've spent a century getting used to cars. Over time, we've collectively decided that having the widespread benefit of cars is worth the tradeoff of resulting deaths — which are a tiny percentage of the beneficiaries even though the absolute numbers are huge.

Cars can kill people; they can also make life more comfortable. They can even save lives if, say, you need to be rushed to the hospital for life-saving treatment, or you need to leave town to escape a natural disaster. Most people basically accept this calculus, and those who don't like it have a lot of power to minimize the role of cars in their lives by not driving, being extra careful when crossing the street, and so on.

You can't say the same thing about terrorism. We haven't gradually gotten used to its presence in our life and systematically worked on minimizing the damage in a way that's broadly acceptable to most people.

I also find it really odd when people argue, in effect, that "we don't take car accidents seriously, so we shouldn't other deaths seriously either." The fact is, we do take car accidents very seriously, as well we should. We've taken all sorts of measures to try to reduce the harm they cause: speed limits, drunk-driving laws, airbags, etc. If one of the premises of your argument is that cars aren't a very morally serious issue, then you simply have a false premise.

Above all, there is no real cost-benefit tradeoff with terrorism because there's no benefit! Terrorists don't offer us a mix of good and bad that we look at and say, "Well, we'll accept that, on balance."

Al Qaeda-style terrorists offer an obsession with death and a dehumanizing ideology, and that's it.


3. The death toll alone doesn't capture the enormity of the destruction caused by terrorism.

Again, people use "3,000 deaths" as a synonym for "the harm caused by the attacks" -- understandably so, as it would seem crass to focus on some of the other harms. But if reality is a little crass, then so be it.

There was enormous economic loss. For some estimates, look at this list and scroll down to the dollar figures. (New York magazine link.) One that stands out: the cost to NYC in the month after the attacks was over $100 billion. That's a million dollars, multiplied by 1,000, multiplied by 100, for just one city, in one month.

There were the toxic environmental effects in Manhattan.

There was a deep psychic wound left on our country's soul.

And there were people who didn't just die, but had to live their last moments hanging out of skyscraper windows and deciding to plummet to their deaths.

That's what I try to remember every year this day. But it's so unfathomable that I can't imagine it.

I don't know how you factor that into a cost-benefit analysis. I don't know how you balance that against the costs of annoying airline security measures, or library records being given an extra look beyond just checking for late fees.

Maybe you can't. You just keep trying to do whatever you can, whatever tiny amount that might be, to stop this from ever happening again.



WTC World Trade Center September 11 memorial in NYC



(Photo of September 11 memorial by Denise Gould. I got this photo from pingnews, which got it from the U.S. Department of Defense photo collection.)

Monday, September 8, 2008

Can you be an environmentalist if you use drugs?

If you use illegal drugs, have you thought about the environmental consequences?

There's a Facebook application ("I Am Green") that lets you post statements on your profile about things you do in your day-to-day life to help the environment. They have a ready-made list of statements -- "I recycle," "I ride a bike," etc. -- but you're also allowed to write your own. When I was looking through the list for statements I could add, a thought occurred to me: shouldn't "I don't do drugs" be on the list?

Well? Should it?

Then I saw this story (via CrimLaw):

Ecstasy tabs destroying forest wilderness

PHNOM PENH, [CAMBODIA,] 20 July 2008 (IRIN) - The production of sassafras oil, which is used to make the recreational drug ecstasy, in southwest Cambodia, is destroying trees, the livelihoods of local inhabitants and wreaking untold ecological damage, according to David Bradfield, adviser to the Wildlife Sanctuaries Project of Fauna and Flora International (FFI) [http://www.fauna-flora.org/].

The sassafras oil comes from the Cardamom Mountain area, one of the last forest wildernesses in mainland southeast Asia, and where the FFI project is based.

"The illicit distilling of sassafras oil in these mountains is slowly but surely killing the forests and wildlife," Bradfield told IRIN. "The production of sassafras oil is a huge operation, which affects not only the area where the distilleries are actually located, but ripples outwards, leaving devastation and destruction in its wake." ...

"The production of sassafras oil over the last 10 years has severely depleted these trees and if the illicit production isn't stamped out soon, they could become extinct in the near future," he warned. The large vats also need substantial wood to maintain the fires, so other species of trees surrounding the distilling factory are being depleted.

Deep in the jungle, the factories are heavily guarded and the workers who distill the oil live on wildlife in the area; many are involved in poaching for commercial gain. Rare animals, including tigers, pangolins, peacocks, pythons and wild cats are consumed by the distillers or sold in illegal wildlife markets, according to FFI.

"Sassafras oil processing plants are usually located besides streams to provide water for boiling and cooling the distilled oil," Bradfield said. The oil leaks into the streams, wreaking yet more environmental damage. "There are frequently dead fish and frogs floating in the streams near these distilleries," Bradfield said. The water from this area flows down into the rest of Cambodia through the Mekong and Tonle Sap rivers. ...

"Law enforcement is the key to suppressing the illegal trade in sassafras oil," according to the officer in charge of UNODC in Cambodia, Lars Pedersen.
If you're interested in more details on sassafras oil and the process of creating ecstasy, read the whole article.

The last sentence in the above block quote, along with CrimLaw's reference to this as "a quandary for legalizers," raises the question: is it inconsistent to be adamantly opposed to the criminalization of the drug trade if you also support stringent environmental protection laws?

One possible response is: there's no contradiction at all. Legalizing drugs would actually facilitate environmental protection. If they're legal, then they're more out in the open and can be regulated by the government.

Maybe. But here's the problem. I would only be satisfied if opponents of the "war on drugs" were proactively suggesting what exactly the government is supposed to do once the drugs are legal. "Government regulation" is often used as a rhetorical magic wand by supporters of legalization, but I'm just not very impressed by that. It's so much easier said than done.

Administrative regulation can be an extremely complicated task even for the most seemingly innocuous substances. It's hard to imagine how you'd go about regulating a previously unregulated dimension of life as shadowy and caustic as drugs. Then factor in that you're talking about regulation on a vast international scale, and I just don't see how it'd be manageable.

Are any of the anti-war-on-drugs organizations out there even trying to grapple with these problems? That's not a rhetorical question -- I honestly don't know the answer. Kudos to them if they are.

In my experience, though, war-on-drugs opponents typically have a lot to say about the costs of the status quo, but have precious little to say about the mechanics of how their legalized utopia would actually be implemented.*

* This point is from Dr. Robert L. DuPont's contribution to this roundtable discussion of legalizing marijuana.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Still more music I've been listening to: Psapp, the Chromatics, Beirut, Sharon Jones

Now that we're done with the grunge all-time top 40, here are some more snapshots of bands I've been listening to lately. (If you want to catch up with earlier editions of this feature, try this link.)

As usual, each "youtube" link goes to one of their songs (in extra-large format -- click on the screen if you want the regular format), and each "myspace" or "website" link goes to their official profile with free streaming songs.

Psapp -- "toytronica" by spousal duo

[youtube - Hi]

[myspace]

The Chromatics -- like Blondie on tranquilizers
[youtube - In the city]

[myspace]

Beirut -- like Rufus Wainwright leading a boisterous singalong at some party in the 19th century
[youtube - Elephant gun]

[myspace]

Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings (photo) -- like the last 3 or 4 decades never happened
[youtube - 100 days, 100 nights]

[myspace]

Thursday, September 4, 2008

My reading list, part 3

(You can see the whole list at this link, and see the beginning of this post for the premise.)

11. What Went Wrong? - Bernard Lewis

How Islam got left behind. Fortuitously written right before September 11.


12. The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

13. God Is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens

I've read Sam Harris's The End of Faith and didn't find it very satisfying. I'm looking forward to these two books as a replacement. I expect them to go well together, almost like a two-volume set: the former is more about God, the latter is more about religion.


14. The Construction of Social Reality - John Searle

It's surprising how little focus there's been within analytic philosophy on explaining society -- not making prescriptions for society, but simply describing its fundamental nature. Searle gives it a shot, and makes you feel in awe of screwdrivers, restaurants, and five-dollar bills.


15. What's It All About? - Julian Baggini

The meaning of life in one short, simple book.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Slavery vs. the draft

While discussing the general idea of national service on Bloggingheads, Peter Beinart asks Jonah Goldberg whether he's in favor of the draft.

Here's the key section from Goldberg's response, which I want to analyze:

I have a problem with compulsory military service if compulsory military service isn't needed at a time of war. . . . You know, the draft is a bad thing. It has a lot of benefits — don't get me wrong. . . . The draft is . . . an incredible . . . it is very comparable to slavery. And in some ways, it's worse than slavery, insofar as you're forcing people to kill other people and be killed. Now, it's an evil, but it's a necessary evil sometimes.
Here's the video, which includes more of the context (the above quote is from the end of this clip):



When I first heard this, my immediate thought was: "Well, he's clearly right about that — so right it's almost boring. Forcing someone to fight in a war and possibly kill or be killed is obviously worse than forcing someone to do more mundane labor, even though they're both bad."

But then I noticed that I have the following set of beliefs, which are so extremely common and mundane that I'd be surprised if you didn't share them:

1. Slavery is always immoral.

2. The draft is usually immoral, but sometimes a good idea. For instance, I would be against the United States having the draft right now, but I think it was worth having the draft during World War II.

But don't points 1 and 2 imply that the draft isn't as bad as slavery? Doesn't that contradict my agreement with Jonah Goldberg's point?

On the other hand, it's seems like the apparent contradiction can be resolved. All you have to do is acknowledge that liberty is not an absolute right, but a relative value that can be trumped by more important values. Or, to put it another way, you'd need to have not an absolute rule against infringing people's liberty, but a general rule that's subject to exceptions based on specific circumstances, e.g. the overriding need to stop the Nazis from taking over the world. Right?

Bonus question: How many made-up words does Goldberg use in that clip? I count two.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

The best thing I've read today

From Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness:

My friends tell me that I have a tendency to point out problems without offering solutions, but they never tell me what I should do about it.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

The 40 greatest grunge songs

"One more special message to go, and then I'm done, and I can go home"

So, that's the grunge list.

I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize some of the people who made this great music who aren't around to make any more of it.

It's a commonplace that rock 'n' roll and jazz are fueled by drugs. [UPDATE: This post inspired one by someone else: 10 theories why artists are so prone to drug use.] Well, it's easy to think about what actually exists for us to see and hear; it's harder to think about what doesn't exist but should.

Shannon Hoon, lead singer of Blind Melon (#24), died of a cocaine overdose on October 21, 1995. He was 28.

Layne Staley, leader singer of Alice in Chains (#14, #5), died from a mixture of heroin and cocaine on April 5, 2002. He was 34. Near the end of his life, he weighed 86 pounds despite being 6'1". He openly admitted that he no longer enjoyed getting high or anything else in life, and that he knew his use of heroin was going to kill him soon.

I vividly remember when I was 13, sitting around watching MTV on April 8, 1994. Kurt Loder announced on MTV News that Kurt Cobain had been found dead in his home and that the cause of death was "a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head." I was so young that the meaning of that delicate phrasing didn't register with me, so I asked my mom about it. She had to explain: "That means he killed himself."

He had died 3 days earlier — like Layne Staley, on April 5. He was 27. He left behind a one-year-old daughter and many others.

Kurt Cobain museum

Nirvana (#18, #9, #1) released only three proper studio albums. In a Rolling Stone interview near the end of his life, Cobain was critical of the band's soft/loud formula and talked about wanting to branch out stylistically. He said he wanted to "learn to go in between those things, go back and forth, almost become psychedelic in a way."

We'll never get to hear how the band might have developed; the analogy would be if John Lennon had died not in 1980 but in 1965. They should have done so much more. But they changed the direction of rock music in the few years they were around. (As I said yesterday, I realize that other bands have a better claim to inventing grunge, but Nirvana perfected it and reached a lot more people.)

For days after the news broke, MTV constantly reran the Nirvana Unplugged concert, and I watched it almost as constantly. I started learning to play guitar that summer . . .


Cobain tribute bench in Seattle

(Photo of Cobain gallery by Christian Payne. Photo of Cobain tribute bench in Seattle by Eric Shoemaker.)

Friday, August 29, 2008

And the top 5 grunge songs are...

1. Nirvana - Lithium

The band members themselves assumed that this would be the song that would break them into the mainstream. They never expected it to be overshadowed by you-know-what.

If I were really trying to make an accurate list, Nirvana would have to take up at least 10, maybe 20, out of the top 40. But that wouldn't be very interesting.

So this song is just a stand-in for all the others I've had to leave out.

What really makes this song for me is Krist Novoselic's bassline. While the guitar part in the verse starts at the bottom and climbs upward, the bass starts at the top and descends. He wasn't generally a flashy bassist, but he clearly gave this song some extra attention. He also does some tasteful noodling in the "I'm not gonna crack" section.



It's common to say that other bands like the Pixies and the Melvins got a raw deal because they were making music slightly earlier that had a huge influence on Nirvana. Well, I'm sorry, but if there are truly great songs by the Pixies and the Melvins, I haven't heard them. Which composers from the classical era deserve more respect — Haydn and Mozart, or Wagenseil and Monn? If you think all that matters is how early they appeared on the timeline of history, you'd have to say Wagenseil and Monn. Well, I know a lot of people who listen to Haydn and Mozart; I doubt if I know anyone who listens to Wagenseil or Monn.

Greatness isn't primarily a game of "I did it first!" It's about making art that touches a lot of people. They were the greatest.

(Click here for afterword.)

(Click here for the whole list.)

Thursday, August 28, 2008

And the top 5 grunge songs are...

2. Pearl Jam - Jeremy

Pearl Jam has never been one of my favorite bands. But I give them a lot of credit: they sincerely tried to make a work of art with this song, and they succeeded.

When it comes to musical composition, most bands are satisfied if they just write a nice melody for the verse and then another nice melody for the chorus. Not many bands are willing to devote this kind of care and attention to individually shaping the melody of each line to fit the lyrics and create a whole musical/dramatic arc.

Here's the disturbing video for this disturbing song:



And here's an impassioned live performance:



(Click here for song #1.)

(Click here for the whole list.)

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

And the top 5 grunge songs are...

3. Soundgarden — Outshined

I can't think of a more brilliant musical expression of raw testosterone than this. I love the way all the instruments and vocals move together on "Show me the power child / I'd like to say / That I'm down on my knees today" — like a machine with perfectly synchronized interlocking parts.

Focus on the interlude that starts just before 3:00. On the surface, there's not much going on here — no key change or guitar solo or anything. But a gentle little passage like this, in a song that's otherwise anything but gentle, is the kind of thing that elevates a song, and distinguished Soundgarden from 99% of grunge bands.




(Click here for song #2.)

(Click here for the whole list.)

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

This will be my only blog post about the 2008 Democratic Convention

My mom is live-blogging the convention, and she uses a comment I just made over IM:

8:04: Governor Kathleen Sebelius. John IMs, "I love her symphonies."
Then, remembering Sebelius's extremely boring response to the last State of the Union address, I add:
She's still dull-ing it up.
She should stick to the symphonies
instead of speeches








Ahem! Sorry, got carried away there ... by one of the most moving pieces of music I've ever heard. (That's the first two movements of Sibelius's 1st, conducted by Esa-Pekka Salonen.) Back to the grunge...

And the top 5 grunge songs are...

4. The Smashing Pumpkins - Cherub Rock

Of all the bands on this list, the Smashing Pumpkins may be the one I most associate with the idea of freedom.

I don't think Billy Corgan is the greatest lyricist. I don't know or care what he's singing about. All that matters is that the song sounds like freedom.

Let me out!!!



(Click here for song #3.)

(Click here for the whole list.)

Monday, August 25, 2008

And the top 5 grunge songs are...

Now that we're into the home stretch of the grunge top 40, I'm going to roll out one of the last five songs every day this week...


5. Alice in Chains - Would?

For some reason, I've always found this to be one of the most emotionally affecting songs of the grunge era. I love the coda (the part that begins, "Am I wrong..."), when they shift to the relative major key with such a sense of absolute determination.



(Click here for song #4.)

(Click here for the whole list.)

Friday, August 22, 2008

The 40 greatest grunge songs (10-6)

(Click here for the whole list.)

And the top 10 grunge songs are...


10. The Toadies - Possum Kingdom


Unusually intelligent rock music.

Everything about this music -- the chord progressions, the asymmetrical meter, the adventurous song structure -- shows that they're thinking things through more than most bands. This only enhances, doesn't detract from, the emotion.




9. Nirvana - All Apologies

1-chord verse + 2-chord bridge = greatness

This is performance is from 1992, before the band recorded the song, so it's wonderfully rough around the edges:




8. Jane's Addiction - Mountain Song

One of those "this is what it's all about" songs. Very straightforward, but everything just comes together here.

Don't miss the guitar solo, in which Dave Navarro reins in his virtuosity just enough to avoid glam-rock territory.




7. Sonic Youth - Bull in the Heather

They're such a monumentally important and influential band that it feels wrong to pigeonhole them as "grunge." But I think this song fits in pretty well, with Kim Gordon's "I'm too lazy to sing an actual melody" ethos.

And those guitar noises!

10, 20, 30, 40...




6. Radiohead - Just

This is why Jonny Greenwood is an acclaimed guitarist. How many rock bands are even aware of the existence of the octatonic scale (a.k.a. diminished scale), let alone able to use it to such wonderfully stomach-churning effect?

Here's the famously enigmatic video:




ANNOUNCEMENT: Next week will be 100%, solid, uninterrupted grunge, as I unveil the top 5 songs, Monday through Friday, one day at a time! Stay tuned...

>>> #5 >>>

Thursday, August 21, 2008

My reading list, part 2

See this post for the beginning of the list, and the premise.

6. Upheavals of Thought - Martha Nussbaum

A thoughtful and emotional book arguing that emotions contain more thought than they're given credit for. 


7. Descartes's Error - Antonio Damosio

Sort of the flipside of #6: rational thought requires emotions -- contrary to the traditional belief that reason and feelings are distinct mental faculties that "d[on't] mix any more than oil and water."


8. Ruling Passions - Simon Blackburn

Similarly, this would go very well with #6 and #7. The basic position is: ethics depends on emotions, yet this doesn't mean that ethical principles are "relative" or "subjective." There's also an intriguing tangent on the connection between aesthetics and ethics. 


9. Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? - Christopher Heath Wellman & Alan John Simmons

Well? Is there?


10. Lifting the Fog of Legalese - Joseph Kimble

Trying to send "null and void" into the void.



Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Blog headings are pointless

3 instances of writers writing against their own genre:

1. There's a long tradition -- going back at least to 1936 -- of law review articles attacking law review articles. Judge Richard Posner's from a few years ago, for instance. My mom also wrote one much earlier -- it's excerpted in the block quote in this post.

2. This blog post attacking blog posts stirred up the blogosphere a few weeks ago.

3. Now there's an essay called "Why Essays Are So Damned Boring," by Cristina Nehring.

This essay helped me stop feeling guilty about not reading more "essay" essays -- the kinds of things that appear in the New Yorker, Harper's, and those annual Best American Essays books, as opposed to reporting or opinion pieces of the sort that are more common in my periodicals of choice, like the Washington Post and The New Republic.

I generally prefer straightforward analysis if I'm going to read about the world. If I'm not going to get tons of concrete information or rigorous arguments about how things work, then I'd rather just forget about the serious stuff altogether and listen to music or watch a movie. (And not a protest song or an ideological movie!) I'm less interested in some squishy grey area between the analytical/political and the creative/autobiographical.

Back to the essay... Nehring has some inspiring words:

We have grown terribly—if somewhat hypocritically—weary of larger truths. The smarter and more intellectual we count ourselves, the more adamantly we insist that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as general human experience, that everything is plural and relative and therefore undiscussable.

Of course, everything is plural, everything is arguable, and there are limits to what we can know about other persons, other cultures, other genders. But there is also a limit to such humility; there is a point at which it becomes narcissism of a most myopic sort, a simple excuse to talk only about one’s own case, only about one’s own small area of specialization. Montaigne thought it the essayist’s duty to cross boundaries, to write not as a specialist (even in himself) but as a generalist, to speak out of turn, to assume, to presume, to provoke.

“Where I have least knowledge,” said the blithe Montaigne, “there do I use my judgment most readily.” ...

“The next best thing to a good sermon is a bad sermon,” said Montaigne’s follower and admirer Ralph Waldo Emerson, the first American essayist. In a good sermon we hear our own discarded thoughts brought “back to us by the trumpets of the last judgment,” in the words of Emerson’s essay “Self-Reliance.” In a bad sermon we formulate those thoughts ourselves—through the practice of creative disagreement. If an author tells us “love is nothing but jealousy” and we disagree, it is far more likely that we will come up with our own theory of love than if we hear a simple autobiographical account of the author’s life. It is hard to argue with someone’s childhood memory—and probably inadvisable. It is with ideas that we can argue, with ideas that we can engage. ...

Today’s essayists need to be emboldened, and to embolden one another, to move away from timid autobiographical anecdote and to embrace—as their predecessors did—big theories, useful verities, daring pronouncements. We need to destigmatize generalization, aphorism, and what used to be called wisdom. We must rehabilitate the notion of truth—however provisional it might be.
Of course, this argument is setting up a delicious paradox: if you vehemently disagree with her thesis, you've proved it!

The last sentence in that block quote is a "good sermon" to me, since it echoes this post.

And the Montaigne quote ("Where I have least knowledge...") could serve as a powerful rebuke to the anti-blog blog post linked above. More about that later...


UPDATE: This post is making my mom nervous!

Monday, August 18, 2008

My reading list, part 1

As I've been transitioning to a new town and job, I've also been rearranging my book collection -- rediscovering books from back home in Madison and bringing them to my new home in Albany. Below are some of the ones I want to get to relatively soon. Some of them are books I'm in the middle of reading, some are ones I've read before but want to refresh my memory about, and some are just books I haven't read yet. All of them are books I might do blog posts about in the future, but for now I just want to have this list on the blog so that I'll be more motivated to read these:

1. The Post-American World - Fareed Zakaria

What in the world is going on?

(Video interview with the author.)


2. The Future of Freedom - Fareed Zakaria

If you want "liberal democracy," you need to have the "liberal" part before the "democracy."


3. Modern Times - Paul Johnson


A history of most of the 20th century. He's overly biased toward the right, and he's supposedly prone to outright factual errors. But when I want to read about history, I just can't not read Paul Johnson, with his passionate writing style and his knack for highlighting the human, quirky side of history.


4. The Mysterious Flame - Colin McGinn

An argument that the mind-body problem can't be solved by human beings.


5. Flow - Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

The scientifically tested secret to enjoying life. Why is happiness so elusive even though it's quite attainable, even for people of modest means?

More to come...

Friday, August 15, 2008

The 40 greatest grunge songs (15-11)

(Click here for the whole list.)


15. Hum - Stars

This starts out underwhelming, and then it blows you away.




14. Alice in Chains - No Excuses

Vocal harmonies have been largely neglected in rock music from the '90s onward, so it's nice to hear this kind of arrangement. The result doesn't really fit into "grunge" or any other category I can think of. It's just plain good music. (From their excellent acoustic EP Jar of Flies.)




13. Pearl Jam - Even Flow

The rockingest portrait of homelessness I've ever heard.

Freezin', rests his head on a pillow made of concrete...




12. Weezer - Undone (The Sweater Song)

Perfect nerd rock.

Watch out for the dogs!

If you want to destroy my sweater, hold this thread as I walk away...




11. The Breeders - Cannonball

How to make a great rock recording by stringing together one gimmick after another.

The album this is from, Last Splash, and their debut album, Pod, are both essential items in the music library of anyone who's into good '90s music.

Check, check, check, ah-ooooohhh-ooh...



>>> Go to #10-6 >>>

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The liberal time machine, part 1: same-sex marriage

Liberals have an odd tendency to artificially compress the timeline of history in order to exaggerate present-day burdens.

For example, Courtney Martin is a straight liberal who writes in The American Prospect about her refusal to get married as some sort of ill-advised protest against ... well, she seems to be protesting a huge cauldron of assorted social ills: racism, homophobia, gender roles, patriarchy... I'm getting worn out just listing all of America's evils.

What's Martin's problem with marriage? Click the link for the whole explanation, but this point is especially ludicrous:

I don't want to participate in an institution that's been historically sexist and currently discriminates against my gay friends, especially considering that my partner and I couldn't have been married in some states just 40 years ago (we're miscegenators)....
I can't think of a more glaring example of the tendency of liberals to willfully blind themselves to social progress. If one of your main gripes with society today is something that ended forty years ago, you're really lucky!

Martin's attempt to depict marriage as a racist institution despite Loving v. Virginia is unintentionally comical:
But the institution is still constructed in subtle ways to fit best with same-raced, preferably white, couples. Imagine a traditional wedding in which two white families are sitting on either side of the aisle. Now imagine a wedding in which one side is completely white and the other completely black. See the problem?
James Kirchik (the author of the above-linked blog post about Martin's article) has the right answer:
No, I don't. Sounds like a wonderful example of America's exceptional multiculturalism to me.
But even if you do have a problems with that specific tradition, don't blame the government -- blame ordinary people. They're the ones who choose to practice those traditions. The government doesn't care what you do.

If Martin really believes seating arrangements in interracial marriages are a "problem," she could just ... solve the problem by getting married without having "a traditional wedding." No one's forcing you to do things the way they're done in movies.

But that implies that she's arguing in good faith -- that she'd love to make society better, and has unfortunately been thwarted by the man. Well, that's hard to believe. For liberals like Courtney Martin, politics isn't about solving problems at all. It's about wallowing in them.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Free Tibet?

Meh.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Don't "do what you love"

Of course, I'm not going to say you shouldn't do what you love! That's why I put "do what you love" in scare quotes — as in, the familiar career advice to "do what you love."

Maybe a lucky few can truly live up to that advice. But Penelope Trunk says that the more realistic (i.e. better) career goals would be...

  • contributing to something larger than you are,

  • participating in society, and

  • being valued in the form of money.
That list is quoted from her simple but thought-provoking career advice.