Clinton, Republicans, Obama and Bachmann

Yes, Bill Clinton lied about staining an intern's dress. I won't say that he acted admirably or honorably in that case. But Clinton's staff didn't commit an act of treason by outing a CIA Operative while trying to make political hay and lead the nation into a wild goose chase for WMD.

Bill Clinton created 23 MILLION jobs in the USA during his eight years in office. The pro-business Republicans of Reagan, Bush and G.W. Bush didn't create that many jobs in their combined 20 years in office! http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

No, I'm not defending Clinton's failings as a leader. But Clinton kept most of his gaffs at a personal level. And I will take Clinton's personal indiscretions and embarrassments over G.W. Bush's record any day of the week. G.W. Bush gave us Abu Ghraib and systematic torture of prisoners of war. G.W. Bush turned our Nation, founded on Freedom and Liberty, into a bunch of thugs who torture. It sickens me.

Bush pillaged what was a Budgetary Surplus under Clinton into crazed deficit spending with unpaid for tax cuts, unpaid for wars and the single largest unpaid for bit of social welfare spending in Medicare Part D. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan. But Bush is the FIRST President who ever thought he could PAY for a war with tax cuts and additional domestic spending. Senior Citizens deserve expanded medical coverage, but it needs to be PAID for somehow! Bush and the Republicans NEVER acted as the party of fiscal responsibility. So when Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives, they are either liars or fools.

You might not like Obama's healthcare reform. But at least he had accountants try to make it balance on the books. G.W. Bush didn't even TRY to balance the books. Bush and the Republicans steered this country into near economic collapse. The Bush Administration led the Country in to a Giant Moral and Fiscal Ditch! And now they blame Obama because the recovery hasn't been INSTANTANEOUS! That's outrageous.

And yes, Michele Bachmann was G.W. Bush's toady. She has lowered the level of public debate and discourse by claiming our President is Anti-American or a Tyrant. Bachmann is either a liar or a fool. She had been a vocal leader in the Party of "No," because Republicans would rather see NOTHING get done than see Obama succeed at anything. And I won't sit by idly and let a fool continue to represent me and my interests.

"I'm CRAZY Candy Corn Head, gimme some CANDY!"

I actually went Trick or Treating in this costume. Technically, I was along as an escort for my children, who were thoroughly embarassed. I got some CANDY!

My Bad Philosophy: Music

This note was written as a comment to The Bad Philosophy Podcast, Episode 045: Bach in Business
http://www.badphilosophy.c..om/blog/2009/09/16/episode..-045-bach-in-business/Check it out, it's great.

Musical Expression can go beyond a Communication between "Audience" and "Performer," it can sometimes better be described as a Communion between the Audience, Performer and "the Divine." Sometimes it's not about Communicating a specific idea, it's about about "BEING" in the moment, sharing in the moment. With written words or written music, that sharing can be across centuries. And when you play music by yourself, it's more like prayer than a neurotic "talking to yourself" or masturbation. Your BEING in the moment with the music can feel like you are in Communion with something outside yourself, even God.

"4:33" (a piece by experimental composer, John Cage) involves a pianist, sitting at a piano. The performer sits at the piano, lifts the keyboard cover and looks at the keys in three specifically timed movements that add up to 4:33. At the end of each movement, the pianist puts the keyboard cover down. Usually the pianist uses a watch to make sure the piece is it's exact prescribed length. You can't just sit on a stool and do nothing for 4:33. It's the unplayedness of the piano that is being played. Get it? It's a perfectly tuned piano, but it's not doing much. It's a classically trained pianist (hopefully a master), but his potential is literally left untapped. They tap at nothing. You are listening, actively listening for something that really isn't happening. And it's through this act of active attention that we "hear" the music.

I've seen this piece arranged for full orchestra! http://www.youtube.com/wat..ch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

Here's a hilarious tutorial video for 4:33. At least watch until 1:18. It cracks me up every time.http://www.youtube.com/wat..ch?v=8LJFJyvZA94

There was NO first song. There was NO first ART. Is Birdsong (the sounds of Birds) not music? Are cloud formations not art? Once you recognize the beauty even in the music of spheres (the spiraling patterns of atoms or the swirling of the stars, you are on a journey of experiencing and sharing in the Divine. I believe, the reason things seem to contain beauty, (even more) convey beauty, convey meaning, the reason Creation speaks to us, is because that's part of why it's there and why we are here! We are born with a desire to seek and doubt, embrace and question, to love and let others love us. It's not just who we accidentally are, it's what we are created to be. We didn't begin to create art until long after we started to recognize it's existence!

Just because you don't understand Twelve Tone Music, that doesn't make it not music. If you don't understand French, you can't claim that French is NOT a language, or that NO significant communication can be done in FRENCH, just because you don't "get it." Binary Code is a language, even if you can only perceive it as a seemingly random list of ONEs and ZEROs, ONs and OFFs, YESes and NOs.

The REASON Tom and Jerry used the music of Mozart was because it already contained some of the "notes" (the themes) of what the Tom and Jerry cartoon wanted to portray. Mozart would easily recognize those same notes. The playfulness, the frenzy, the whimsy and the conflict would all be familiar to Mozart, because he's the one who originally put them there in the music.

"Afternoon of a Fawn" is an attempt to communicate a specific idea purely as Music. "Night on Bald Mountain" tries to tell a story, a SPECIFIC story, just with tones and patterns of sound. Most Ballets are attempt to convey a specific story through music alone (aided by dance). Now, how well that idea is communicated can be a problematic in how well the idea is interpreted. But even if someone has no concept of what a "Fawn" is, "Afternoon of a Fawn" still can convey that same pastoral peace and pleasure. It can still be intrinsically relaxing.

Even if you don't know the meaning of French words, you still may be able to recognize "A French Mother scolding her child." You might not know exactly what transgression the child has committed or was about to commit, but the "idea," the basic sense of the transaction/exchange can still be communicated and understood. The child might not be old enough to know the words either, but even they can easily recognize their mother's tone.

In the same way, almost anybody with senses, regardless of language, culture or musical education can recognize that "Afternoon of a Fawn" is about pastoral peace and "Night on Bald Mountain" is about intimidating power. Even if the specific exact ideas aren't conjured in the minds of the listeners, that doesn't mean the composer wasn't trying to convey specific mental images. And it doesn't mean the piece is a failure if something else is conjured up for the listener. Even without the specific mental images (a fawn, a demon), you can still get the gist of the piece.

Why do soft, quieter sounds convey "peace"? Why do sharp, loud sounds covey "action" and "attack"? They just do. You could program someone to react oppositely to music. Pinch them, hurt them, surprise them or scare them every time they heard soft, pastoral music and eventually they would hear quiet peaceful music with a feeling of dread and fear. Reward them, praise them, love them to "violent music" and their reactions will be different. This is one reason why kids and parents have different reactions to the same music. They have been "rewarded" by their peers differently as to how they should react!

Why do red colors feel "hot" or make us hungry. The just do. You can reprogram someone to confuse their color sense, but why would you want to!

Graphic artists play with our natural and for the most part shared experiences of color, shape and light to make visual pieces "feel" more than what is contained in the piece. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

In the same way, musicians use our shared experiences with sound to make us "feel" ideas that might not be readily explained in words.

Songs, when they work well, MAKE us FEEL more than what the WORDS or MUSIC could covey on their own. Because there is something instinctual about how we react to certain sounds. Songs not only let us know the meaning of the words, they help us FEEL the meaning. The whole is more than the sum of the parts.

"Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away." If you can "hear" the music in your head right now, that is part of the magic of the lyrics. If you can "feel" the sorrow beyond the face value of the words, that is part of the magic of the music. (And the music's in me, yeah. Do you believe in magic?)

The OCTAVE system isn't something we created. It's something we recognize. It's something we've discovered. It's a phenomenon of physics and mathematics that exists and has always existed. If you pluck a string and then divide it in half and pluck it again, you will hear the same note one octave higher. That will be recognized by any culture anywhere. The harmonics of fourths and fifths isn't something we create, it's something we recognize. It's a function of the physics and mathematics of sound.

Primary and Secondary Colors are the same no matter what part of the world you are from or what planet. They are function of the physics of light. Similarly, the octave will be an octave anywhere in the world or even in the vacuum of space, because it's a property of physics, not just perception.

All that said, I don't think we should limit our definition of music to purely auditory phenomena. Yes, Music is MAINLY auditory. But Music is fundamentally temporal. We are playing about with time and how things exist in time. Rhythms are obviously timed. But so are notes. Those are specific vibrations, recreations of specifically defined timed events. The harmonies and dissonance that is created between two or more notes is function of how those notes mix and blend in time. There is an underlying physics to it that isn't put there by arbitrary definition. Roots and fifths harmonize because they have shared overtones that blend together. Mix a Root tone with tones that don't blend as well (or aren't even on the scale, quarter tones away) and you will have dissonance. The "ugliness" isn't just a function of perception. It's part of the basic physical character of the sound. The sound waves clash or unite.

Now, Western Culture uses a tempered scale, this colors the music and our perceptions of music. If you grow up in a culture that doesn't use a tempered scale, it can make Western music "taste" sour. Like not understanding Twelve-Tone. A tempered scale can just feel a bit Alien and odd to someone who isn't used to hearing it. It's like pouring skim milk on the cereal of someone who is used to eating their breakfast only with whole milk. They might spit it out screaming, "Why the hell are you pouring WATER on my Corn Flakes!"

But a pure scale can be something magnificent. It's one reason a cappella singers can send shivers down your spine. True harmonies, the blending of real fourths and fifths and thirds and minor thirds (and more complex combinations), that can be the stuff of chills. It can set your hair on the back of your neck on end. The twelve tones on the piano are only aproximations of the "true" harmonies.

Musicians are playing with movement and expectation and surprise. Tension and release. Static art can only approximate this kind of momentum. And Dance IS music, even when there is no sound accompanying the dance. Because dance has to be about movement and time. It's why 4:33 is such a funny, perplexing piece. It's only about time and not about movement. The movement and surprise is mainly in the "found" negative space that constantly surrounds music but is rarely focused on by the composer. But that "found" space isn't defined by the composer.

The motion of the planets, the rhythmic swirl and beat, beat, beat of the seasons and moons and planets and stars IS music. Composers have long recognized this and tried to translate that into notes. The submicroscopic spins of particles, the seemingly chaotic "Brownian" motion between molecules is all MUSIC! It's just Skadillion Tone music! We just don't understand most of it. But that doesn't mean that it's not music or that it has no meaning.

Machines can reproduce music, and make it almost exactly the same every time too. Some people value that. That's why we value recordings. It's also why we value live music, because of it's ephemeral nature.

If a committee gets together and writes a piece of music, who is the composer?

Can someone program a computer to generate music? Can a computer "compose" music that the programmer couldn't write or even conceive of by themselves without the aid of a computer? If you liked this "Computer Music," who are you communicating with? Who is the composer? The Computer? The Program? The Original Programmer? Or are the listeners themselves the composer? When they stop and say, "That Bit! Those last 30 seconds of seemingly random Blips and Bleeps. That's the part that I like and want to hear again, haven't they become part of the process?" Or are they just recognizing auditory cloud patterns and saying, "Hmm, that one is nice."

I think that every time you listen to a piece of music, actively listen, and become involved with it, you are collaborating on that piece! "Oh, I like that bit .. ooh, not so sure about that part. Hmm, this reminds me of a fawn. I saw a fawn yesterday. I believe in Yesterday." You are the person who can turn recorded sounds into "live" music, by actively listening.

Sometimes we don't compose, we recognize what is already there. If I create a piece of music by transcribing birdsong to an approximation of notes, who wrote the music? Did the Bird? Did I? Did God?

Sometimes it feels like when you create a piece of music that you are discovering it, pulling it whole from the ether. A DIVINE inspiration! And who can deny someone their experiences of the divine! (I guess a cynic, skeptic or a psychiatrist.)

I'm sorry this comment is novel length. I just kibitzed and typed while I was listening to the podcast. I hope you can forgive the tangential and overly verbose qualities of my comments. Those come all too naturally to me.

Finally, come check out TooMuchAwesome.ning.com. It's a growing community of artists (mostly songwriters) and other interested fans and folk. I am going to point the TMA crowd toward the Bad Philosophy podcast too. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of this episode too. Speaking for the community (and I have no authority to do so, but that won't stop me), we are in need of some Too Much Awesome Bad Philosophers. Thanks.

Bizzaro Maverick

Me am John McCain! Me crawling for Bizzaro Prezdent! Me Maverick! Agree all Bush do! See? That am Mav-rick! Me big Unregulator! Now me say, "Big Rules Good!" Change good! Mav-Rick! Bad Money Men NEED new rules. Me am a Keating Five! Mav-RICK! Big Unregulator make good Regulator! Make sense to ME! Me a Maverick to LOGIC! See? Me run away me own ideas! Me Maverick to Me! Bad Democraps! Me a BY Party Son! Not like Crappy Stupid Democraps. I reach cross aisle. Shake hands one hand! Rabbit Punch other! By Party Son, Maverick! Crappy Stupid Big Brain 'Bama. He eat fancy lettuce. 'Bama like Terror-Fists! 'Bama say look at past! Me no look at past. Me war hero! Me live in box. No look at past. Look past past to past I say look at! MAV-RICK! MAhhhV-RiiIICK! --Me John McCain! Me approve message.

Leadership: We Get Exactly What We Deserve

President Bush is the worst President in modern History. I don't know enough about American History, like the "Teapot Dome Scandal," to compare Bush to earlier Presidents. Certainly the massive ethnic cleansing that was done against Native Americans ought to go down as a black mark on SOME President's record and put them in the running for "Worst," maybe Andrew Jackson.

But there is no question that this President has been on vacation more than any other. He made little effort to actually guide the country through difficult times. I lay the current financial crisis squarely at the feet of Bush and the Republican Congress. For six years they gave a mutual rubber stamp to any and all excesses in spending, war profiteering, lax regulation, thoughtless deregulation, TORTURE, attacks on civil liberties and insane budget deficits and record National Debt.

It's takes hard work for a President to seem MORE criminal than Nixon. More Tricky than Dick. An even bigger Dick! President Bush is the perfect storm of criminal negligence, arrogance, stupidity, criminal culpability and incompetence. I think this administration would have screwed Our Nation less IF they had TRIED, that is how incompetent they are in my eyes.

It's telling that the Republican President, the Republican Presidential Nominee and the Republican House Minority leader couldn't lead more than 33% or their own party to vote for a bipartisan bill that all of them claimed was essential to the vitality of the World Economy. Where is the LEADERSHIP from the Republicans? Where is the Republican Leadership on a day when the Dow loses the most points in HISTORY?

OK. Bush is a dip-shit. A Grade-A dithering nimrod. At this point Bush and McCain are not even capable of leading paid members of their own party. Not ONE Arizona Congressman (McCain's home state) was willing to follow McCain's leadership on the Economic Rescue Bill. The Republicans looked for an excuse to SHUT DOWN their National Convention, rather than be photographed standing next to Bush. Bush stinks, and obviously the Republicans think the stink is contagious. That said, Bush still occupies the Office of the President. He is still the Figurehead of the United States. For Better or Worse, for Richer or for Poorer, we as a Nation said "I Do," TWICE! We have nobody to blame for Bush but ourselves (especially for re-electing the boob).

But We need to respect the Office of the President. We need to respect the Democracy that put him in power. In that regard, I think it would be not only rude, but unpatriotic to ignore a phone call or invitation from the President. IF the President called me on the phone, I would answer. If the President asked me to come the White House and pose for a picture, I would accept the invitation. I would even grit my teeth and smile. It would be rude to do otherwise.

I also think that it would be unconscionable, rude and unpatriotic for the American People to put someone who agreed with even 90% of Bush's policies over the last eight years back in the Oval Office. Our Country is in desperate need of a true Leader, somebody who can restore respect, trust and confidence back to the Office of the President. We desperately need change. I don't think we can get that from a pseudo-maverick, frankly a leadership-gelding, like John McCain. It's our Patriotic Duty as Americans to VOTE. It's our job as citizens to put in place the kind of leaders we think we deserve. In a Democracy we get what we deserve. And I believe we deserve more than the erratic, knee-jerk (and rubber stamped) judgment of John McCain. I believe we deserve more than Bush-Lite. It is my Prayer that (this time) Americans can recognize Leadership when they see it. I believe that we are being offered the chance to vote for a True Leader. I HOPE for CHANGE. I'm voting for Obama.

What's the Baby Using?

The answer is too obvious.

When logic and reason aren't enough, we turn to definition and unreason. 

What's the baby using? 25.

read more | digg story

What's the baby using? If you just don't get it.

What's to get! It's not funny. It's not supposed to be funny. It's not supposed to be anything.

Len Peralta was walking through a mall with his baby. A guy at a cell phone kiosk asked the non sequitur question, "What's the baby using?" Who knows what the salesman meant by that! Maybe he was just trying to get Len to stop and chat. Maybe Len misheard him. But the question stuck in Len's head. So he and the baby continued through the mall, and when they came upon another cell phone salesman, Len asks, "What's the baby using?" Maybe Len thought it was some kind of cell phone salesman catch phrase. Anyway, without missing a beat, the other salesman simply says, "25!"

Again, this is a complete non sequitur. "25" has nothing to do with "What's the baby using?" But "What's the baby using?" has nothing to do with anything in the first place.

OK. So Len finds this silly or funny or somehow interesting. And Len makes a video. He asks some of his friends, "What's the baby using?" and they answer, "25." My guess is that Len was holding up a sign that read, "The Answer is 25," right under the video camera.

Some of Len's friends are moderately and modestly famous. (Jonathan Coulton and Paul and Storm, to name a few.) Even Len is modestly famous, he hosts a Podcast, "Jawbone Radio." That podcast has talked about this phenomenon. Len is also a talented graphic artist.

SO, "What's the baby using? 25!" catches on. Some call it an "inside joke," some call it a "forced meme." I call in nonsense, Dada and intentional pointlessness. But it's caught on.

Several YouTube videos have been dedicated to the subject. Len has a site, www.whatsthebabyusing.com that feeds into another site, www.needcoffee.com/the-truth-about-25/ He's also got www.thetruthabout25.com, but that just feeds back to needcoffee.com. Since Len created "What's the baby using?" and he seems to be connected to needcoffee.com, I consider that to be currently the definitive web site on the subject.

Now, here's the deal. A joke that has to be explained is never funny. A joke that get's explained to you is less funny. But this isn't a joke. Or if it is a joke, it's just that if you know that the answer is "25" you won't be confused by the question, "What's the baby using?" Jokes are funny. If "What's the baby using?" was funny it wouldn't be pointless. And my contention is that pointlessness is the whole point.

If "What's the baby using?" is a joke, I just ruined it!

It it HAS to be a joke, here's one of the funniest:

http://apelad.blogspot.com/2008/09/laugh-out-loud-cats-25.html

Here are some reasons for liking and enjoying "What's the baby using? 25":

1) It's a non sequitur. It's nonsense. Nonsense is funny just because it makes no sense. I'm not sure why that is, it just is. Read "Alice in Wonderland" or the Far Side or watch Andy Kaufman lip-sync the Mighty Mouse Theme Song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfsrg28jE7k

2) It's an inside joke. If you know the answer," 25," you aren't confused by the question, "What's the baby using?" In fact, you may somehow feel empowered by your knowledge and by the belief that you are now in the In-Crowd.

3) In a world where Macro-Economics, International Military Policy, Radical Religious Extremism and the Price of Gas make NO SENSE, our confusion can lead to FEAR. Finding something that is confusing but totally innocuous can be comforting.

4) "What's the baby using? 25!" is just plain silly. It's silly that anybody would devote hours of time, several URLs, the aid of his friends and strangers in promoting a non-concept. Seriously, there is nothing there. No hidden meanings. No meaning at all. It's just a glorious mess, a beautiful waste of time. It's silly that someone like me would spend WAY more time commenting on your blog than you took in creating it!

5) "What's the baby using? 25" is a bit of interactive performance art, mostly on the Web. I think it relates to Dada, but I might be full of crap. I think Len has been very generous in not claiming ownership or even authorship of this work. He's just it's original curator, promoter and philosopher. The work is open for contribution, interpretation and addition. I see THIS VERY BLOG entry as a major contribution to the art piece that "25" is becoming.

Have you ever heard of the John Cage piece, 4'33""? Here's a link to an orchestral version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

If you've never not heard 4'33" then this is your chance to not hear 4'33" now. I think there are parallels between what John Cage was trying to convey in 4'33" and what Len and others have been trying to say or unsay with "What's the baby using?"

6) "What's the baby using? 25" is like a Rorsharch Test. Because (by definition) it has no meaning, whatever meaning you see in it is ameaning that you bring to it or has somehow been conveyed upon you. My ramblings here are, by definition, pointless. I'm just trying to foist the meanings that I have "discovered" in "25" on you! My hope is that I haven't spoiled this for you, but enhanced in some small way your experience of "25."

7) The more time that’s invested in a pointless activity, the more importance it seems to convey. This is the logic (if it can be said that there is any) behind most fraternity hazings and many modern religions! It’s called cognitive dissonance. "What’s the baby using? 25!" What is the point in studying the intentionally pointless! Where is the logic in trying to find the nuances in things that are by definition illogical? I don't know. All I know is that I find a certain purity, sincerity, beauty and joy in all of it. There is a certain truthiness here that goes beyond facts or sense.

I've coined the term, "Cryptomemetics," to describe the phenomenon of fads that catch on even if we have no understanding of what they are or why. It’s not a forced meme, just pointless. What’s the point of a meaningless activity if we are willing to give up on it quickly or easily? Treadmill sales would crash if everyone gave up on pointless activity. So go ahead, jog to nowhere and just freely admit that the baby is still using 25.