The Reason Is You

YES

From TMZ:

"Nailin' Paylin"

Posted Oct 3rd 2008 10:30AM by TMZ Staff

Sarah Palin is officially a legend! Hustler Video is shooting a porn with a look-alike titled "Nailin' Paylin." The spelling is sic and so is Hustler. You betcha!

The faux Sarah is Lisa Ann, who "will be nailing the Russians who come knocking on her back-door." In another scene -- a flashback -- "young Paylin's creationist college professor will explain a 'big bang' theory even she can't deny!"

There's also a threeway with Hillary and Condoleezza look-alikes.

The video is in pre-production, but is being fast tracked for release before the election.

Palin Syrah

This report comes to us via the "Serious Eats Team", who are, we assume, quite serious about all things gastronomical.

S.E.T. writes that beginning in September, a wine bar in San Fransisco saw a dramatic drop in sales for the Palin Syrah -- a cheap ($13), organic, Chilean wine -- which until that point had been the bar's top seller.


No word yet on sales nationwide, but one can assume that this is about to become the most hipster wine ever.

Also, can Bsmith get us some? Like now?

Also II, I think I like this impersonation of Palin more than Tina Fey:

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

So far she's recorded eight vlogs (officially my new favorite web term) on 23/6 @ the Huff Post.

On the Nature of Sweet: John Rawls' Response

See other posts in the "Is this sweet?" series.
See other posts in the "On the Nature of Sweet" series (more focused on the philosophy of sweetness).

This post features a guest author. Torey, a bona-fide Rawls scholar, has written a response to all this discussion on Sweet from the perspective of John Rawls:
-------------------------
Rawls: The subject of this brief response concerns arguments made in favor of various conceptions of sweetness. After carefully reviewing them all, I have found that all those engaged in the debate to date have made the same critical flaw. All have focused on a particular definition of sweetness affirmed by a particular worldview. For example, I do not think of huge explosions as sweet but I do agree that Jack from Lost with a beard is sweet. Others may disagree and offer entirely different views –crossword puzzles, Sarah Palin's folksy witticisms, nutella, etc. As I explained in Political Liberalism, in any pluralist society, such as our own, there will inevitably be an infinite number of comprehensive doctrines, or visions of what is sweet. It would be impossible to prioritize any one definition of sweetness over another, and any attempt to do so would be largely arbitrary. How can one possibly decide whether sweetness is George Bush choking on a pretzel or whether it is actually that goofy man in the park on the bicycle. The criteria involved in such an endeavor would inevitably involve evaluating the content of competing worldviews; a task which cannot be done in an impartial manner as it involves judging the veracity of deeply held believes. So the dilemma remains that what is sweet to one is not universally sweet in a plural society. Thus, sweetness becomes a metaphysical problem, a problem that can never be resolved in any satisfactory way through rational deliberation.
----------------------


A firm case made for the utter subjectivity of Sweet, but Durkheim certainly takes issue.

Also, Rawls doesn't think of "huge explosions" as totally sweet? At this, I am utterly lost in despair and confusion.

Live Blogging the Debate

Coaltrain (10:39 PM): Final thoughts:


I can't believe this is the debate where the gloves were supposed to come off. That was fairly boring, but that's probably a good thing for Obama. I suspect after the media made such a big deal about McCain going negative, his advisers decided he couldn't mention Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright.

As for performance, McCain seemed pretty awkward overall, and I thought Obama was damn near perfect. But what do I know -- I'd probably take the guy over Jesus.

Edgar Keats (10:32 PM): Zen? Bringing it all back home.

Coaltrain (10:27 PM): McCain doesn't just thank soldiers for their service, he does it six times.

Coaltrain (10:25 PM): If I had chosen 'petrodollars' as my drinking game buzzword, I'd be shitfaced right now.

Edgar Keats (10:24 PM):
-Hey man, what are you doing?
-Putin.

Coaltrain (10:21 PM): This whole 'whether or not to attack Pakistan' issue is really bizarre. McCain and Obama's positions are completely counter-intuitive to what one would expect. And it's all b/c of an answer Obama gave at a debate back in August 2007 when he speculated about an extremely specific situation with "actionable intelligence about bin Ladin" where the Pakistani military was refusing to act. But b/c Obama has to prove he can be strong on defense, and b/c McCain has to prove Obama is naive, they are unable to change their positions.

Edgar Keats (10:17 PM): Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Thank you, Obama, thank you.

Coaltrain (10:08 PM): I love hanging out with Brandon's parents b/c they make the same horribly offensive jokes that we do. For example, Brandon's dad's take on the McCain Doctrine:

"KILL THE GOOKS!"

Coaltrain (9:59 PM): McCain tried a joke that fell way flat. And now he's being a total peacemonger on foreign policy.

Edgar Keats (9:52 PM): Is it wrong that I'm only paying attention to the debate to make jokes to my family and Luke?

Coaltrain (9:45 PM): OMG this is such a snoozefest. When is McCain gonna say Obama wants Bill Ayers to be his economic adviser? And when is Tom Brokaw going to reprise his role on SNL?



Coaltrain (9:38 PM): Devan, that mooning was in response to your comment.

Edgar Keats (9:35 PM): My brother's input:



Coaltrain (9:30 PM): Anyone watching CNN w/ that insta-response graph thing? Barry is killin' it round 90% approval every time he talks, while McCain's numbers can't get any higher than his arms (GOT EM!)

Edgar Keats (9:21 PM): YES! Got 'em!

Totally Solid Dudes Vol.2

You may not know him, but Hal Blaine is a definitive solid dude.

I had the fortune of learning about Hal Blaine when I had a revelation in class. It was in Composition III that I was assigned (yet again) to write and record a Tango song. For those who may not be entirely familiar with Tangos, it is a form of dance music that originated in Argentina in the 19th century and is loosely based on African drumming, presumably acquired from the large populations of African slaves that inhabitied the country at the time. It is based entirely on a distinct rhythm, which is either in 2/4 or 4/4 and contains accents on the 2, 3, and 4th beats.

An example of a traditional Argentinian Tango (pay attention to the drums):

Now, I asked to myself (as all Epic Mailers do) regarding my idea of Tango music at the time, "Is this sweet?"

The answer was a resounding, "not really."

However, the beauty of Tango music, and all music in general is that it can transcend practice and genre and can be mutated and borrowed into any form of aural expression.

Further investigation showed that Tango isn't even really a distinct type of music, as it has been interpreted all over the world, but is really only defined by that particular rhythm.

So, now regarding Hal Blaine and my revelation:

As time goes on, I am more and more taken with the classic popular rock and soul songwriting of the late 1950s into the 1960s. What draws me to this era is the appreciation and drive the artists had for majestic production. Even today, listeners marvel at the massive work and perfectionism put into this time; strings were everywhere, multiple guitars were strummed, background choirs cooed, etc. There was an epic (!) quality to it all. Everything had to be huge. Lyrics were direct, simple, and timeless. Every song was performed as if it were the single. Sure, there was a formula, but what a formula it was!

Of course, when anyone thinks of this time, among others, one of the big names that always comes to mind is the great, drug-addled, and violent, Phil Spector.

Spector (a solid dude in and of himself, but you know that) pioneered his "wall of sound" into songs that were often number 1s on the pop charts for the majority of the 60s. He influenced many artists including Brian Wilson (who arguably could not have conceived Pet Sounds without him) and the collective of Motown song-machines that inhabitied Hitsville, U.S.A.

It was during the production of one of Spector's earlier hits that not only sent a ripple through popular music, but was the cause of my revelation.

A young studio drummer, Hal Blaine, was in on the session for the Ronettes "Be My Baby" when he sat down and was ordered to come up with a drum intro and beat to the song. Whether intentional or not, Blaine began to play a slowed version of the Tango beat. It all came together. Thanks to Spector's production, this drum opening established a new big beat. Spector had a new trick up his sleeve.

With this Blaine/Spector combo, the duo went ahead and defined this sound with other groups, including The Righteous Brothers. "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling," is one of the most gigantic songs of popular music, a staple of radio since it's inception. Any aging baby-boomer female will tell you that this stuff was crack for them in the day. With the Blane/Spector hookup, several groups of deep voiced crooning dudes defined a new style of dreamy, shimmering rock music, based on stately harmonies, sadness, and sharp clothing. Those reverbed drums shook the foundations and took pop music into to the next level, arguably paving the way for the psychedelic walls of sound that would follow several years later.

Let's not forget The Walker Brothers, the wayyy sweeter modish British crooners who owned the British pop charts in the mid-60s and were rumored to be more knee-deep in horny, long-haired, trimmed-bang femme fatales than the Rolling Stones. You know you want those jackets.

Along with Spector, Blaine helped establish what he called "The Wrecking Crew." They were a group of studio musicians that basically went pop crazy, playing on so many important American records in the 60s.

Blaine bashed skins on the following recordings, just a small part of his discography (I shit you not):

Elvis Presley- "Return To Sender"

Roy Orbison- "Oh, Pretty Woman"

The Association- "Windy"

The Byrds- "Mr. Tambourine Man"

Barry McGuire- "Eve of Destruction"

Frank Sinatra- "Strangers In The Night"

Simon and Garfunkel- "Mrs. Robinson"

Beach Boys- "Good Vibrations"

Nancy Sinatra- "These Boots Are Made For Walkin"

The Mamas and The Papas- "Monday Monday"

You get the idea.

The Wrecking Crew's big beats and dreamy production later went on to influence many later artists. We all know this:

Also, Bat For Lashes made this, a totally sweet vid.

Anyway, Blaine basically rocked the fuck out, and in the process paved the way for music that takes it to the next level, from cheesy balladry to drugged out shoegaze and creeper pop. Solid bro.

One day you will look back

you knew it all along

what makes sense at the present

in the future will seem wrong

and amidst all of this regret

just close in on my face

and you'll know then

Mp3: Eddie Charlton- "You'll Know Then"

On the Nature of Sweet: The Perfect Case Study

See other posts in the "Is this sweet?" series.
See other posts in the "On the Nature of Sweet" series (more focused on the philosophy of sweetness).

Today's case study is based off of a hypothetical situation that Mr. Sherrill cooked up in his last dialogue. I call it, "the Sherrill chain reaction." For anyone whose memory is fuzzy on the details, here is the example as it originally appeared:

Bentham: "What if an act that is patently not sweet in isolation could lead to greater sweetness? Surely you can recognize the morality of such an act. For example, smashing a bottle of Dogfish Head 90 Minute in the middle of the street is not sweet. But what if this is done so that the glass might pierce the tire of a passing gasoline tanker, sending it careening into a gas station and setting off a totally sweet chain of explosions?
Kant: Hmm...that would be pretty sweet....But do you mean to say that the bottle was broken with this intention? Then perhaps I could permit it. But if the crash were inadvertent, I'm afraid it could not be condoned, or labeled as sweet.

Here we have a perfect case study for students of Sweetness. Upon hearing this example, my initial impulse was to say, "No, of course the bottle smashing STILL isn't sweet." And Kant makes a great point about the importance of intent. The only way the smashing could become sweet is if the final result had been anticipated. For this argument to work, however, it demands the ability to make individual judgments for each constituent element of the chain reaction. Is that possible? Can we look at each small thing -- for instance, the smashing of the bottle -- in isolation, or should we evaluate the series of events as a single unit with a single set of aggregated effects?

There's a problem with judging each element individually: the sweet chain reaction would have never occurred (well, was astronomically less likely to occur) were it not for the smashed bottle. In some sense, the bottlesmashing birthed the entire sweet explosion. The explosion is indebted, then, to the unsweet smashing of the bottle. On the other hand, the whole question of causality is a slippery slope, since we could technically make all sorts of wacky arguments about what eventually caused what. I mean, none of this would even be possible if dogfishhead didn't make bottles of 90 minute, or if the truck's driver decided to take a different route on that fateful day.

So then I convinced myself that the smashing of the bottle did, in fact, become sweet, and here was my logic: I imagined that the entire situation was caught on videotape by a friend of the bottlesmasher -- let's call him Steve. Later that night, after they cleaned their post-explosion puncture wounds and changed out of their soot-covered clothes, they invite some friends over to watch what happened. Even though Steve ardently disapproved of the bottle smashing at the time of the incident, he now shows the entire video with enthusiasm, anticipating the extreme sweetness to follow -- "Oh my god, guys, check this out, it's so sweet." The consequences of this are as follows:
- This whole chain reaction of events is evaluated as a single unit, with one set of sweet or not sweet effects
- It means that sweetness is something that can be historically revised, retroactively, given the knowledge of the "big picture" -- reinforcing the subjective, socially constructed nature of sweet

Of course, there are problems with this line of thinking, too. Since we regard the entire chain of events as a single unit that produces a single outcome of sweetness, then we inevitably engage in a sort of "equation of sweetness." Either consciously or unconsciously, we weigh the sweet constituent elements against the unsweet constituent elements to determine if these events are sweet as a whole . In other words: smashing of the bottle = not sweet, but chain reaction = TOTALLY SWEET, thus overall event = totally sweet.

This equation, however, demands value judgments of sweetness. Who's to say that the unsweetness of the bottlesmashing is overshadowed by the sweetness of the tanker explosion? Comparing a smashed bottle to a chain reaction explosion is almost too easy, though. Let's complicate things. For example, what if the smashed Dogfishhead 90 minute happened to be the last bottle of 90 minute on Earth, and the driver of the truck was Axl Rose, who was belting out "Welcome to the Jungle" as he sped towards his imminent death? Surely the world would lament the loss of these two things. How then do we make a meaningful evaluation of the sweetness of the event as a whole?

:: Editor's note: I just realized that Axl Rose actually might become sweeter if he was exploding while screaming "SHA NA NA NA NIIII NIIII" as opposed to simply being alive -- but let's disregard that for the sake of argument.


IS this sweet?
Please weigh in, yall.

Again, no substance from me

But! I did write a new song

Check it?

http://8bitcollective.com/music/ghostbloom/For+Jane/

FLEH!

http://8bitcollective.com/music/ghostbloom/Crush/

I say good day!

A Pictorial Rebuttal to David's Apologia

Greaves and grieving.

And the coup de grace, weaves and weaving.

I would also like to add that cleaves and cleavin' is an interesting case study, as "cleave" can mean both "to stick to" and "to split apart." This paradox is, unfortunately, a representational impossibility, but the following comes close, conceptually speaking.

Q.E.D.

Epic Pun: A Defense of Leaves n' Leavin'

When the my personal ethos is challenged and ridiculed by someone who simply decides to open up a rhyming dictionary, I must respond. Not only do these pun-sults reveal, as Obama recently said of McCain's new attacks, "a campaign that is running out of ideas," but they also obscure for our readers the meaning of "leaves n' leavin'." I hope this serves as both a defense as well as an explanation.

The main problem with replacing a rhyming word like "thieves" or "sleeves" with "leaves" is that the phrase becomes self-reflexive. Thieves ARE thieving, yes, but does that mean anything? Is that even a pun when it stands alone or is it simply a joke on the far superior "leaves n' leavin?" Does the new statement have anything larger to tell us about the human condition? Well, no, it doesn't.

The beauty of leaves n' leavin' is that it refers to two separate things - objects known as leaves which are synonymous with Fall, and the act of leaving - and unites them to embody nostalgia in its purest form. The phrase can be used as shorthand, as a symbol, in fact, to capture a landscape, an event, or an experience which causes one to stand back in awe and realize the importance of the current moment in the whole scope of one's personal storyline. When you're sharing one last brew with your best bros on the porch you've been sharing for so long, or when you feel the crisp Fall air rush by your face as you walk hand in hand with a new girlfriend or boyfriend, you don't need to write a fucking paragraph to express your feelings at this moment - you can just say or think the phrase "leaves n' leavin'." The pun isn't funny as much as it is convenient. By referring to an object that embodies the autumnal spirit as well as the nostalgia-filled act of saying goodbye while ALSO making a pun, the phrase is full of rich and varied meaning.

As I already mentioned but as you now can see more clearly, other iterations of this phrase don't hold up to scrutiny. Sure, it's funny to rhyme words, but non-sensical phrases already seem to be in abundance in this increasingly irrational post-modern world. Do we need any more? "Sleeves n' Sleevin'" for example. "Sleevin'" isn't a separate concept from "sleeves" and, in this case, it isn't even a word. We could come up with equally absurd phrases if we applied the same logic to other rhymes of "leaves." Here are some:
Sieves n' Sievin'
Cleaves n' Cleavin'
Weaves n' Weavin'
Cheves n' Chevin'
Greaves n' Greavin'
Grieves n' Grievin'
Ask Jeeves n' Jeevin'
(For more rhymes check out this)
None of these rhymes warrant more than a ephemeral chuckle compared to the power of leaves n' leavin'. And for a contributor who recently posted an article challenging the meaninglessness of current hipster culture, I find such "peacock"-displaying tactics rather odd.

So as we always like to ask on Epic Blog: Is this sweet? I've presented my side. I'll let you decide. I'll leave you with my favorite leaves rhyme: Steve's and Stephen

(Thanks to Hot Eatz and his Children of the Pun. No Depression, guys.)