It’s Criminal: Nathaniel Merriweather’s Lovage

First things first: there’s no Nathaniel Merriweather. It’s Dan the Automator, also known as Dan Nakamura. The Automator’s ungodly string of incredible productions - Handsome Boy Modeling School, Dr. Octagonecologyst, Gorillaz, and Deltron 3030 - might be topped by this one. Lovage: Music To Make Love To Your Old Lady By.

Here’s how it works with Nakamura: he comes up with a concept, gathers some considerable talent, and he makes an album. In this case, the talent was Faith No More’s Mike Patton, Elysian Fields’ Jennifer Charles, and Kid Koala on the turntables. The album also features appearances from Afrika Bambaattaa (but not the Zulu Nation, sadly), Prince Paul (as alter ego Chest Rockwell), and Blur’s Damon Albarn (who would later be a founding member of the Gorillaz, in his career’s second act).

In this particular case, the album was what the title says it was: an album to listen to while having sex. There’s a fair amount of tongue-in-cheek fun being had here, but there’s no mistaking what’s going on in “(Pit Stop) Take Me Home,” “Strangers On A Train,” “Stroker Ace,” and “(Sex) I’m A.” These tracks are downright sexy, and if you think its awkward reading a 28-year-old father of two say that, you can’t imagine how it is being a 28-year-old father of two writing it. But facts are facts: the songs are hot.

Charles whispers that “I like to watch/if you don’t mind/every sphinx/knows how to pass to the time/your little love nest/suits me well/let me show you/how to cast a spell,” which is the album in a nutshell: a woman with a ridiculous voice cooing oddly dirty things in your ears.

Look, good music does many things to the listener. It can evoke anger, or sadness, or happiness, or in the case of this album, inexplicable sexiness. (Bambaataa’s track, for example, is a bizarre two-minute riff on how a man can get a woman into bed. His answers (which sound suspiciously like they were to different questions) are spliced with what sounds like a Ron Howard soundalike questioner. It’s positively strange.) There’s no denying though that when the songs are focused on the album’s state goal - making love to your old lady - Automator puts it all together.

Unforunately, the album is out of print. Maybe tracks are available through the iTunes store? Or, yknow, if you know me, yknow?

Terrible Journalism

Earlier - and by earlier, I mean two minutes ago - I wrote about the Muslim woman jailed for refusing to take off her hijab. It’s an interesting story that the reporter covering it screwed up. How?

Well, to believe the headline, the woman went to the courthouse, refused to take off her hijab, and was jailed. The first few paragraphs give you exactly the same impression. So, in fact, does the entire story, save the last sentence.

When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

Isn’t that fact important? Doesn’t it undermine the entire narrative that we’ve just read through? Isn’t it possible that the officers dragged her before the judge for swearing? And wouldn’t the story be more compelling if we knew that the idiotic rule/law she ran into - banning headscarves from the courthouse, whether or not they’re religiously required - frustrated her to the point of swearing at the courthouse security?

Unlike this garbage, a good piece of journalism doesn’t leave you feeling cheated at the end. The minute I read about the swearing, the second explanation for her jailboundedness not only became clear, but reasonable. The rule/law is stupid, but it doesn’t entirely explain this woman’s situation. A good reporter would have known this and included it in the beginning, instead of hiding it away at the bottom because it undermined the story she wanted to tell.

Technorati Tags: Bad Journalism, Georgia, Hijab

Woman Jailed For Headscarf

In the past few days, I have referenced rights and religion. Here is an example that combines both perfectly: a Georgia judge had a Muslim woman jailed for refusing to remove her hijab.

Our Constitution says, in the first amendment, that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

You could split hairs and argue that the inclusion of the word “Congress” means that judges are, in fact, allowed to make laws prohibit the free exercise of religion, but subsequent judicial decisions have tended to slap down any attempt by any government or government official to restrict religious expression. This decision though was clearly an attempt to prohibit the free exercise of religious belief. How else can a judge preventing a woman from entering his courtroom for wearing a hijab, and then jailing her after she expressed reasonable frustration, be interpreted? (More on the swearing in a subsequent post.)

The judge’s act and whomever was responsible for the idiotic rule in the first place are likely to go unpunished. Note that the right to religious expression apparently isn’t absolute; at the moment it isn’t, it stops being a right. There’s nothing wrong with it not being a right. It just means that those who insist that their rights have been violated when a government does something unjust to them are making the incorrect claim. They never had any “rights” to begin with. They had freedoms as dictated by the governing structure, freedoms that were, and always have been, malleable. It is absurd to misunderstand this as an absolute right which we are all guaranteed.

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Hijab, Rights

You Don’t Have Rights

One of the most absurd claims that people make when discussing governments is the notion that they have the “right” to be free of its interference in their lives. This holds true for any specific right that is claimed: rights to guns, rights to religion, rights to speech, rights to property, whatever. The problem starts when the discussant suggests that the possessed right is endowed to them merely by being a human being.

You know what is naturally endowed to human beings? Death. You can count on death. But as for the natural possession of a right to this, that, or the other thing, you’re being silly. For the record, I should note that the concept is an awfully nice one to think about, even if it is totally absurd.

-The first problem with rights is that it would seem as if they’re absolute in nature, but nobody actually believes we have an absolute right to do anything. Take the right to free speech - if you actually enjoyed the absolute right to free speech, you could say whatever you wanted, wherever you wanted, however you wanted and whenever you wanted. Can you really do that? Can you legally walk into a crowd and start screaming “Fire!” at the top of your lungs? The absoluteness of a right suggests you can; the police officer’s baton upside your skull suggests otherwise. This extends to all of the rights we claim to enjoy: you can’t take guns whever you want, you can’t publish whatever you want, you can’t do whatever you want with your own property, you can’t practice your religion however you want. In every instance, the government has intervened to draw boundaries about acceptable and unacceptable uses of rights.

-The second problem is concession - is there anybody who will claim that we as human beings should have the freedom to walk into crowds and start trying to cause panics? Of course not. “That’s an irresponsible use of the right,” some idiot will say. But if irresponsible uses of the right aren’t protected behavior, then the right itself is up for definition and redefinition; that’s where the government steps in.

-The third problem is the government itself. If rights are naturally occurring phenomenon, governments would recognize this and stand out of the way on these particular issues. But of course, governments do no such thing. They define the right to speech, to property, to religion, to guns, to trials, to whatever. If the government’s capable of doing that - and clearly they are - doesn’t that suggest that the government has more to do with the right than the natural world?

-The fourth problem is how reasonable it is to think about rights coming from governments. If the rights we enjoy stem from documents written by goverments (the Constitution, for example), and if the rights we enjoy can be defined and redefined by laws and judges, it doesn’t seem outrageous to think that maybe the rights themselves stemmed from the governments.

-The fifth problem is people claiming they have the right to do something that they don’t need the right for. Take, for example, thought. Some people will claim that they have the right to think whatever they want; this is true. This is true regardless of anything else. In the worst situation, under the most dire conditions, at the razor’s edge of life and death, you can still think about how awesome the CareBears are, even if your oppressor is demanding otherwise. (”Dammit, I like the Snorks!”) The same is true of religious belief - you can worship any god you want, whenever you want. There might be consequences, but its up to the individual to decide if the consequences will change their own beliefs. Same is true, in fact, of all things.

-The seventh problem is that people claim rights because they want to be free from consequences. “I have the right not to get taxed,” some other idiot will yell, “because I don’t want to pay taxes.” The consequence of getting a good job, at this point in American (world?) history is taxation. So apparently, your right not to get taxed isn’t doing you a damned bit of good.

Look, I understand why rights are appealing. They’re certainly appealing to me. But it’s absurd to think that I naturally possess the right to anything. Rather, governments create freedom to certain activities from wholecloth, and change the definitions regularly. What freedoms we don’t explicitly enjoy, we’re free to negotiate with ourselves via a positives/negatives analysis of outcomes.

More later.

Technorati Tags: Absurdity, Natural Rights, Rights

Added Link - ObscureCraft.Net

When I was raging against an awful Lexus commercial, I ran across Jesse’s Obscure Craft, a fantastic weblog, as the kids call it. Take the time to check it out.

Technorati Tags: Obscure Craft

Jon Henke = Moron

Perhaps the headline is unfair. Perhaps I am unfair. (Editor’s Note: Perhaps the whole damn system is unfair?) But if this Jon Henke fellow is going to claim with a straight face that Democrats have never had their patriotism questioned by Republicans, you have to wonder.

For instance:
1. George W. Bush said, famously, “You’re either with us or against us in the war on terror.” He was clearly referencing domestic opposition to his proposed policies.
2. Here’s a book purporting to document the Hate America Left, a phrase thrown about at every turn to discredit any criticism of Republican policies enacted between 2000-2006.
3. Here’s a leading light of the conservative movement, Dennis Prager, saying the same thing in column form.
4. Here’s an elected representative questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism.
5. Here’s former elected representative Tom Delay writing an article called DeLay Questions Dems’ Patriotism.
6. Here’s a Republican candidate for office questioning an elected Democrat’s patriotism.
7. Here’s Barack Obama, forced to defend his patriotism after it was questioned because of his refusal to wear a flag-pin.
8. Here’s a column purporting proof that Democrats are less patriotic than conservatives.
9. Here’s a Vice-Presidential questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism.
10. Here are Republican supporters questioning John Kerry’s patriotism by mocking his earned Purple Hearts in the Vietnam War.

Need I go on? A favorite attack of Republicans has been to question the patriotism of anybody that disagrees with them; to act as if that hasn’t happened ever is positively beyond absurd. Idiot.

Technorati Tags: Jon Henke, Patriotism, Republicans Democrats

Finally Cracking Down On The Amish

Mercifully, local governments in New York and Wisconsin - having solved all other problems, as they say Fark - have decided to crack down on the Amish for having the audacity to build homes the way they have for generations. Foolish doesn’t begin to describe the strategy being employed here.

The problem began when the Amish began spreading into communities where they’d never been before. (The story above suggests the Amish population has doubled in the last 15 years. Anybody know why?) Local housing inspectors saw homes going up without the builders getting the appropriate permits. The local governments, obsessed with treating everyone equally, and apparently unaware that the Amish generally have a small section of the legal code carved out (Wisconsin -vs- Yoder) to recognize their religious beliefs of simplicity and disconnection from modern society, began to intervene.

The sort of additions to Amish houses that were mandated were ridiculous, including numerous items that require electricity, a non-starter for many Amish. The municipalities have insisted that everybody be treated equally. Ultimately, the state cannot force religious peoples to violate their own beliefs; what these governments are doing is exactly that. They’ll ultimately lose.

Still, the gall of these people. Government authorities that believe they have the power to tell you what to do with your private property. Some interventions make sense; this is not one of them. This is localized authority run terribly amok, with little regard for the citizenry being badly affected.

The answer of what to do here is clear: withdraw the state from regulating how private residences are constructed. I have no objection with the state regulating the way rental units are built and maintained, but how somebody wants to live on their own property is nobody’s business but their own. For a government authority to come to your house and tell you to change the way it is built is an absurdity beyond reason.

—-

Incidentally, the Amish are interesting for how they practice their religion. They disconnect from society at large generally, and eschew conflict. One of the reasons they struggle in cases like the one described above is that they’re prevented by their beliefs from defending themselves in a courtroom. They believe they are instructed to avoid conflict.

Note also that they are orthodox believers, but at no point do they assume the need to make outsiders follow their rules or believe as they do. Hear that James Dobson? It is possible.

Technorati Tags: Amish, Housing, New York, Wisconsin

Condors -vs- Buzzards: Sci-Fi Brilliance

I love The Sci-Fi Network. Not because I watch it; I don’t. Rather, I find it fantastic for the “horror” movies it seems to regularly be responsible for, in which some monster gets its own vehicle.

For example:

1.Bugs
2. Cerberus
3. Gryphon
4. Frankenfish (”It’s a fish that’s a frankenstein! Frankenfish!”)
5. Ice Spiders
6. Kaw
7. MegaSnake
8. RockMonster

The pitch meetings for these things have to be friggin’ fantastic. Everybody’s sitting around, wondering how they’re going to top Larva, the only obvious answer is making exactly the same movie, except replacing the larva with a Sabretooth!

They’re really making magic over there.

Technorati Tags: Sci Fi Network

So Far This Morning…

…while watching The West Wing on Bravo, I’ve seen advertisements for three separate scents: something by Dior, something by Armani for men, and something by Britney Spear’s (available at Walgreens!). Who on Earth is buying this crap? Even from a distance, I can feel my sinuses seizing.

And there’s another one! For something else by Armani. Four different “scents.” Ugh.

Technorati Tags: Scents

Vulcan Fire Salt

LoLo and Stewart are excellent friends. For Christmas, they sent me a bottle of The Spice House’s Vulcan Fire Salt, pictured above. They know I am a lover of hot foods and figured this salt would be perfect.

Some Thoughts
1. I used the salt to make potatoes, which I generously covered before cooking for a half hour at 450 degrees; the salt’s pop seemed to cook off. This is troubling. If it requires more, you run the risk of oversalting whatever you’re cooking, which is never a good time. The other option is, obviously, adding it afterward.

2. I have used this salt straight up, without cooking, and that’s where it really took off. The flavor was very good and added a nice hot pop to the rice I used it on. I should caution that the heat was not excessive; if you are prone to trying to eat the hottest foods imaginable, this might not be enough for you. But if you’re someone who likes a scosh of heat added to whatever you’re eating, putting this on after cooking will do remarkable things for your food.

3. The taste itself is different than adding, say, a hot sauce. I would liken it almost to a hot cajun seasoning; the fact that I’m even mentioning cajun seasoning probably calls into question my cooking credentials. (”What kind of cook uses premixed cajun seasoning from the grocery store?!?!”) Still, that’s what it reminds me.

4. You also easily incorporate this into a rub for a piece of meat; again, some of the heat would inevitably cook off, but what remained would be pretty tasty, and, if the doctors haven’t warned you about your sodium intake (Married Mike, I’m peering at you!), you should be fine if you add a little more afterward.

Thanks again to LoLo and Vegan Stewart; this has gone immediately into most used spices collection above my fridge, and experimentation will surely continue.

Technorati Tags: Hot Food, The Spice House, Vulcan Fire Salt