I’ve been listening to some 2-Tone Ska recently. Mostly the two bands that I used to listen to in high school, “The Beat” (also known as “The English Beat” and “The British Beat” for copyright reasons) and “Madness”.
I started reading some wikipedia on Madness and ska and discovered some things that were very surprising to me. I had no idea that ska in general, and Madness in particular, is skinhead music. So then I read the wikipedia entry on skinheads. To my surprise, skinheadism originally had nothing to do with white supremacy, and was in fact originally inspired by the Jamaican “rude boy” subculture. Apparently the nazis took over skinheadistan in the 1970s, and there are still pockets of resistance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead#Racism.2C_anti-racism_and_politics.
The wikipedia article on Madness in particular is very sympathetic. The basic idea is that, while many fans of Madness were nazis, the band in general tried to distance itself from skinheadism. (Note that Madness first gained success in 1979, by which time most skinheads seem to have been nazis, and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_(band)#Skinhead_controversy).
Madness often opens live performances with the song “One Step Beyond”. This song was also the first track, and title track of Madness’ (very successful) first album. Here’s the lyrics:
Hey you, don't watch that
Watch this!
This is the heavy heavy monster sound
The nuttiest sound around
So if you've come in off the street
And you're beginning to feel the heat
Well listen buster
You better start to move your feet
To the rockinest, rock-steady beat
Of Madness...
One step beyond!
The song itself is an instrumental song by Prince Buster, but the lyrics are by Madness. The first two lines are a quote from another song by Prince Buster. Clearly, the term “buster” in line 7 is a reference to Prince Buster. According to Wikipedia, the members of the band idolize Prince Buster, who (according to some accounts) is the inventor of ska. Prince Buster is a black Jamaican.
The problem is that line 4 isn’t really “the nuttiest sound around”. Listen to it. It’s “the naziest sound around”. I’ve listened to the original and a performance from 1991. Is “nazi” just Cockney for “nutty”, or something? I checked three lyrics sites and they all said “nutty”. Also, Madness recorded a Spanish version; if some of my Spanish-speaking readers could listen to the Spanish version and tell me if that says something analogous to “nazi” or “nutty”, I’d very much appreciate it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Free Egypt: A Platonic Dialog by MC Complete
Daniel: You know what really ticks me off? Dictators. I want the Egyptian people to be free. Mubarak needs to go.
Benjamin: But what if he’s replaced by somebody worse, like the Shah was replaced by Khomeni?
Daniel: That would be bad. I don’t want Mubarak to be replaced by another tyrant. I support the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. But I certainly don’t support Mubarak.
Benjamin: But don’t you think that even a democratically elected government in Egypt could be more anti-Israel than Mubarak?
Daniel: The Arab street can’t be trusted to vote the right way, so we should just stick with the dictators? I can’t accept that. Look, it’s possible that there will be a democratic government that is more anti-Israel than Mubarak. But I think that freedom in Egypt would be good for Egypt and for the Egyptian people and it would make the world a better place. We can’t let fear and small-mindedness prevent us from taking a stand for freedom.
Benjamin: But what if the current unrest is resolved in such a way that it leaves Mubarak stronger than ever? We don’t want him to be mad at Israel and the US. Other Western-leading Arab leaders are also afraid of democracy. Maybe we shouldn’t risk offending them.
Daniel: How many times have Mubarak and King Hussein complained about the occupation? They’re not exactly on the payroll of the Hasbara, if you know what I mean. Look, Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We’re not shooting at each other. We even have diplomatic relationships. But we never promised to help prop up their oppressive, autocratic regimes. It doesn’t say “we will kiss your ass” anywhere in the peace treaties. (I think.)
Benjamin: Don’t you think you’re being a bit too idealistic?
Daniel: I am idealistic when it comes to freedom. And I’m not saying anything original or profound either.
Benjamin: I know, and your blog is usually so deep.
Daniel: I don’t even know why I’m writing this. I guess I was just feeling frustrated because of that story in Haaretz that said that the Israeli government was quietly supporting Mubarak in the diplomatic channels.
Benjamin: What makes you think that Israel has any influence in diplomatic channels?
Benjamin: But what if he’s replaced by somebody worse, like the Shah was replaced by Khomeni?
Daniel: That would be bad. I don’t want Mubarak to be replaced by another tyrant. I support the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. But I certainly don’t support Mubarak.
Benjamin: But don’t you think that even a democratically elected government in Egypt could be more anti-Israel than Mubarak?
Daniel: The Arab street can’t be trusted to vote the right way, so we should just stick with the dictators? I can’t accept that. Look, it’s possible that there will be a democratic government that is more anti-Israel than Mubarak. But I think that freedom in Egypt would be good for Egypt and for the Egyptian people and it would make the world a better place. We can’t let fear and small-mindedness prevent us from taking a stand for freedom.
Benjamin: But what if the current unrest is resolved in such a way that it leaves Mubarak stronger than ever? We don’t want him to be mad at Israel and the US. Other Western-leading Arab leaders are also afraid of democracy. Maybe we shouldn’t risk offending them.
Daniel: How many times have Mubarak and King Hussein complained about the occupation? They’re not exactly on the payroll of the Hasbara, if you know what I mean. Look, Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We’re not shooting at each other. We even have diplomatic relationships. But we never promised to help prop up their oppressive, autocratic regimes. It doesn’t say “we will kiss your ass” anywhere in the peace treaties. (I think.)
Benjamin: Don’t you think you’re being a bit too idealistic?
Daniel: I am idealistic when it comes to freedom. And I’m not saying anything original or profound either.
Benjamin: I know, and your blog is usually so deep.
Daniel: I don’t even know why I’m writing this. I guess I was just feeling frustrated because of that story in Haaretz that said that the Israeli government was quietly supporting Mubarak in the diplomatic channels.
Benjamin: What makes you think that Israel has any influence in diplomatic channels?
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Some Thoughts on Fine-Tuning in "The God Delusion"
If I could debate Richard Dawkins, I bet I could make an agnostic out of him. Here’s what I would say:
1. The only candidate solutions to the cosmological fine tuning problem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning) are the anthropic principle and intelligent design (I mean cosmological design, not evolutionary design).
2. The anthropic principle only works in a multiverse.
3. Science can’t detect the existence of a multiverse.
4. In other words, science can’t distinguish between a multiverse and intelligent design.
5. Given the fact of cosmological fine-tuning, it’s reasonable to assume that either a multiverse exists or a designer exists.
6. You can’t invoke Russel’s Teapot anymore. There’s no reason that the burden of proof should be on intelligent design, nor, for that matter, is the burden of proof on the multiverse.
Many people I’ve spoken to don’t accept premise #1 & #2, but Dawkins does, and I think he’s right. God willing, I’ll explain why in a future post, or you can just read “The God Delusion”.
Some people wouldn’t agree with #3, but I think most people, including Dawkins, probably would.
At point #5, Dawkins strongly disagrees. He thinks that there is a good reason not to believe in a designer. Here is his argument:
1. The universe is very complex.
2. If the universe had a designer, the designer must be very complex.
3. So someone must have designed the designer.
4. But then, of course, someone must have designed the designer of the designer, and so on.
In my arrogant opinion, this is kind of silly. It’s basically an argument from personal incredulity. The problem is point #2; who says the designer must have been complex? Maybe the designer was/is very simple. But Dawkins just can’t accept that a very simple being could have designed a very complex universe, so he doesn’t believe in intelligent design.
1. The only candidate solutions to the cosmological fine tuning problem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning) are the anthropic principle and intelligent design (I mean cosmological design, not evolutionary design).
2. The anthropic principle only works in a multiverse.
3. Science can’t detect the existence of a multiverse.
4. In other words, science can’t distinguish between a multiverse and intelligent design.
5. Given the fact of cosmological fine-tuning, it’s reasonable to assume that either a multiverse exists or a designer exists.
6. You can’t invoke Russel’s Teapot anymore. There’s no reason that the burden of proof should be on intelligent design, nor, for that matter, is the burden of proof on the multiverse.
Many people I’ve spoken to don’t accept premise #1 & #2, but Dawkins does, and I think he’s right. God willing, I’ll explain why in a future post, or you can just read “The God Delusion”.
Some people wouldn’t agree with #3, but I think most people, including Dawkins, probably would.
At point #5, Dawkins strongly disagrees. He thinks that there is a good reason not to believe in a designer. Here is his argument:
1. The universe is very complex.
2. If the universe had a designer, the designer must be very complex.
3. So someone must have designed the designer.
4. But then, of course, someone must have designed the designer of the designer, and so on.
In my arrogant opinion, this is kind of silly. It’s basically an argument from personal incredulity. The problem is point #2; who says the designer must have been complex? Maybe the designer was/is very simple. But Dawkins just can’t accept that a very simple being could have designed a very complex universe, so he doesn’t believe in intelligent design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
