It Takes a Worried Man to Sing a Worried Song
The alt-country band Old 97's used a line from that in their song "Big Brown Eyes."
The (obvious) problem with equating skin color with "priviledge"
Mild language warning, (well deserved) emotional violence against a clueless leftist:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/993513778653290497.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/993513778653290497.html
Speaking of Birthdays and Events on May 8
Friedrich August von Hayek was also born on that day. Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayek share a birthday. Huh.
Jerry Douglas, Edgar Meyer, Russ Barenberg
These three musicians put out one of my favorite instrumental albums, Skip, Hop, and Wobble. There's a clear bluegrass influence, but they take it new places.
You can listen to the whole thing on YouTube, but here are the first two tunes.
You can listen to the whole thing on YouTube, but here are the first two tunes.
Kingship in the Viking Age
An essay on whether scholars are 'reading in' Anglo-Saxon values when they study the Norse sagas.
Grim's Hall
Some of you expressed thoughts about the place, including a request for photographs. Here are a few that give the sense of the place. You can see how much it resembles what you had thought it would look like.
Dragon's breath at sunrise.
Inside the hall.
Below the waterfall.
Gangstagrass
Best known for the theme song to the series Justified, Gangstagrass also has a couple of albums out.
Don't call my bluff
Rookie moves from a prosecutor who's more political than prosecutorial:
Alas, figuring that he was playing with the house money, Mueller made a reckless bet: He charged not only Russian individuals but three Russian businesses. A business doesn’t have the same risks as a person. A business can’t be thrown in jail. And while members of Mueller’s prosecutorial stable have a history of putting real businesses out of business, a business that is run by a Putin crony and serves as a front for Kremlin operations is not too worried about that either.
So . . . guess what? One of those Russian businesses, Concord Management and Consulting, wants its day in court. It has retained the Washington law firm of Reed Smith, two of whose partners, Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, have told Mueller that Concord is ready to have its trial — and by the way, let’s see all the discovery the law requires you to disclose, including all the evidence you say supports the extravagant allegations in the indictment.
Needless to say, Mueller’s team is not happy about this development since this is not a case they figured on having to prosecute to anything more than a successful press conference. So, they have sought delay on the astonishing ground that the defendant has not been properly served — notwithstanding that the defendant has shown up in court and asked to be arraigned.What's even funnier is that they asked for a few weeks to brief that extraordinary position.
The Steeldrivers
This might be our theme song ...
Maybe add some horses and bikes, UH-60s, claymores ... but, pretty close.
Maybe add some horses and bikes, UH-60s, claymores ... but, pretty close.
Sunday Night Movie Music Video
Haven't done this in a while, but this caught my eye yesterday. I think I own all these movies. Mifune will hold his own against anybody you care to compare him with.
Grim’s Hall
We are moving again, which explains the recent lack of posts. This time, we are moving to a place that befits the name “Grim’s Hall.” I’ll be another three weeks with it at least, but that’s what is keeping me away.
Elmore James (1918-1963)
"Dust My Broom" opens with one of the best-known blues riffs of all time. BB King used it later on.
James wrote "The Sky Is Crying" in 1960 or so. Stevie Ray Vaughn (1954-1990) did a good version of it.
James wrote "The Sky Is Crying" in 1960 or so. Stevie Ray Vaughn (1954-1990) did a good version of it.
An Interesting Take on Hume's NOFI Principle
David Hume famously argued that you cannot logically deduce an ought from an is, which principle can be abbreviated as NOFI: No Ought From Is. This seems reasonable but it potentially leaves morality in a quandary.
Some time back we discussed whether or not there could be moral facts; I thought there could be moral facts, but some here vehemently disagreed. One of the possible conclusions from NOFI is that moral facts are impossible. Maybe a moral statement like "murder is wrong" is simply cheerleading: "Yay for not murdering people!" Or maybe it is a command: "Don't murder!" But it cannot be a fact that murder is wrong because there is no way to deduce what ought not be done just from what is.
Philosopher Charles Pigden disagrees. He has a different explanation for NOFI and its implications. Since I am not a philosopher, nor do I play on one TV, it is best to read his explanation if you are interested. However, in brief, as I understand it, he uses historical evidence and reason to clarify that Hume's NOFI claim was that there was no logically valid way to derive ought from is, but that Hume left open analytically valid ways to derive morality. This, then, would leave the door open for an objective basis for morality.
As to why I am considering Hume's NOFI principle at 4:12 a.m., I will leave that to the reader's imagination, but note that champagne was involved.
Good night, all.
Some time back we discussed whether or not there could be moral facts; I thought there could be moral facts, but some here vehemently disagreed. One of the possible conclusions from NOFI is that moral facts are impossible. Maybe a moral statement like "murder is wrong" is simply cheerleading: "Yay for not murdering people!" Or maybe it is a command: "Don't murder!" But it cannot be a fact that murder is wrong because there is no way to deduce what ought not be done just from what is.
Philosopher Charles Pigden disagrees. He has a different explanation for NOFI and its implications. Since I am not a philosopher, nor do I play on one TV, it is best to read his explanation if you are interested. However, in brief, as I understand it, he uses historical evidence and reason to clarify that Hume's NOFI claim was that there was no logically valid way to derive ought from is, but that Hume left open analytically valid ways to derive morality. This, then, would leave the door open for an objective basis for morality.
As to why I am considering Hume's NOFI principle at 4:12 a.m., I will leave that to the reader's imagination, but note that champagne was involved.
Good night, all.
In the Cathedral of May
But how many months be in the year?
There are thirteen, I say;
The midsummer moon is the merryest of all
Next to the merry month of May.
IN summer time, when leaves grow green,
And flowers are fresh and gay,
Robin Hood and his merry men
Were [all] disposed to play.
Then some would leap, and some would run,
And some use artillery:
'Which of you can a good bow draw,
A good archer to be?
'Which of you can kill a buck?
Or who can kill a doe?
Or who can kill a hart of grease,
Five hundred foot him fro?
"It's a matter of consumer perception"
Yeah, I'll say it's a matter of consumer perception. New York restaurants are coming unspooled over the consequences of the minimum wage hikes that, in theory, both they and their fashionable patrons support 100%. But wait, someone has to pay the higher wages. Let's see, can we eat into restaurant profits? Surely not. Magically save money somewhere else? Apparently we can't. Well, we could charge the patrons more for the food. How do we do that?
It's very complicated. There are these things called menus that reveal the prices. Suppose we change the numbers there to higher numbers? What, and spook all the people impressing their clients and their dates by taking them to expensive fashionable restaurants?
I know, let's leave the menu prices alone and add a surcharge at the very last minute on the check, when everyone's too drunk to notice. Because social justice for the back-of-the-house staff.
The problem is, apparently the restaurants need a city ordinance to allow them to add such a last-minute surcharge, and the city fathers aren't dumb enough to catch this hot potato when it's tossed back to them. The patrons believe in social justice, the restaurateurs believe in social justice, and the politicians believe in social justice. They just don't want to be blamed for it. Thus the spectacle of restaurants running full-page ads demanding the right to impose the surcharge and blaming the city for subjecting them and their underpaid staff to financial hardship. We want to pay the staff more! You just won't let us, you meanies!
It's very complicated. There are these things called menus that reveal the prices. Suppose we change the numbers there to higher numbers? What, and spook all the people impressing their clients and their dates by taking them to expensive fashionable restaurants?
I know, let's leave the menu prices alone and add a surcharge at the very last minute on the check, when everyone's too drunk to notice. Because social justice for the back-of-the-house staff.
The problem is, apparently the restaurants need a city ordinance to allow them to add such a last-minute surcharge, and the city fathers aren't dumb enough to catch this hot potato when it's tossed back to them. The patrons believe in social justice, the restaurateurs believe in social justice, and the politicians believe in social justice. They just don't want to be blamed for it. Thus the spectacle of restaurants running full-page ads demanding the right to impose the surcharge and blaming the city for subjecting them and their underpaid staff to financial hardship. We want to pay the staff more! You just won't let us, you meanies!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)