Joss Whedon (of Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Serenity, etc. fame), has created a short show (in three parts) that’s available for free viewing on the internet for another day (until midnight, Sunday July 20). After that, I think you’ll still be able to purchase it via iTunes, and there will be a DVD released in the future.

It stars Neil Patrick Harris, and Nathan Fillion and is called Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. It’s “A supervillain musical, of which, as we all know, there are far too few.”

I thought it was pretty entertaining. I loved the Once More, with Feeling musical episode of Buffy. Joss’ songs are always clever and fun.

Here’s the plan/FAQ. Watch it, and enjoy.

Also, watch for Dollhouse, next year.

UPDATE: Dr. Horrible is available for free again on Hulu (with limited commercial interruption). Yay!

I really liked the Amity Shlaes column in today’s Washington Post defending Phil Gramm’s recent comments (about the “Mental Recession” and the “Nation of whiners”).

She identifies the problem of “Campaign Econ”:

Campaign Econ says the American economy is a certain way because Americans think it is. Campaign Econ competes with real economics and often wins — with damage that extends way beyond, say, the political career of either Phil Gramm or John McCain.

This is a real problem, and the fact that both McCain and Obama seem to prefer lying for their own political interests, over considering genuine problems and solutions, is bad for the country. Gramm’s advice would have been much better than any we’ll see from these two (and their surviving advisors).

But, I really liked the comment from Don Boudreaux:

“Campaign Econ” (the “economics” typically babbled by politicians) is to real economics as astrology is to astronomy.

I’ve blogged about humor before.

I’ve always been interested in learning more about why we find some things funny, but not others.

Well, there’s a new theory (and a new book) coming out that tries to explain it.

Alastair Clarke explains: “The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter.

“By removing stipulations of content we have been forced to study the structures underlying any instance of humour, and it has become clear that it is not the content of the stimulus but the patterns underlying it that provide the potential for sources of humour. For patterns to exist it is necessary to have some form of content, but once that content exists, it is the level of the pattern at which humour operates and for which it delivers its rewards.”

I find this theory interesting, and mostly satisfying. Of course, one could define pattern recognition so broadly that all thinking would be covered. And then, the theory wouldn’t really explain anything.

But, I do think there’s something there.

And, I like that it recognizes that while there are some very common themes in humor (dignity reduction, misfortune), they don’t completely cover the domain of humor.

It’s also consistent with my (non-rigorous) observation that people with a well-developed sense of humor tend to be above average in general intelligence, since intelligence often involves facility with pattern recognition and the ability to play with the abstract concepts that form these patterns.

I hope you’re all enjoying your Fourth of July.

I’ll probably watch 1776 (yes, I finally bought it), and maybe go to see WALL·E
later tonight.

By the way, if you’re on Facebook and are so inclined, you can join my blog network here (I’m not clear on what the purpose is, but I’m sure it will lead to
something or other).

UPDATE: WALL·E was very good. It did have some annoying, preachy, messages; but, they were overshadowed by the high-quality animation and humor.

It’s sad when (almost) anybody dies. But when I think about the recent deaths of Tim Russert and George Carlin, I have to say that the media got it backwards in terms of the importance of the losses.

I suppose it was to be expected that Russert would get a lot of glowing coverage, being a member of the press and having died fairly young. But, it was a bit outrageous for it to go on and on as much as it did. I don’t remember that much of a fuss when Gerald Ford died. Russert was a decent television show host, and I’m sure he had many admirable qualities; but many equally competent and admirable people die all the time.

Carlin, on the other hand, was a giant. He was able to find and express humor in life and language as few others will ever hope to equal. And he wasn’t afraid to point out stupidity wherever he saw it. That’s something we need.

I’ll always fondly remember his classic routines like Baseball vs. Football, the Seven Words, Voting, and many more.

And, by the way, What is all this shit about angels?

I had to laugh to myself, at Tech·Ed last week, because attendees entering the party at Universal Studios in Orlando were offered large turkey legs to grab and eat while walking around.

I immediately thought about how offensive this would seem to Leon Kass, and that nobody there seemed to have a problem with it.

So, I took one and enjoyed my “shameful behavior.”

I’m off to Orlando for Tech·Ed 2008 next week.

I won’t be doing any blogging while I’m gone.

I’ve complained about Leon Kass and his “Wisdom of Repugnance” before.

Recently, several bloggers have noted Steven Pinker’s “ice cream” quote from Kass that shows pretty clearly that his repugnance shouldn’t be considered by anybody to be wise or a justification for limiting other people’s options.

Here’s Pinker’s quote:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone–a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. … Eating on the street–even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat–displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. … Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. … This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.

Here’s an even longer version:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone –a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those
who know eating in public is offensive.

I fear I may by this remark lose the sympathy of many reader, people who will condescendingly regard as quaint or even priggish the view that eating in the street is for dogs. Modern America’s rising tide of informality has already washed out many long-standing traditions — their reasons long before forgotten — that served well to regulate the boundary between public and private; and in many quarters complete shamelessness is treated as proof of genuine liberation from the allegedly arbitrary constraints of manners. To cite one small example: yawning with uncovered mouth. Not just the uneducated rustic but children of the cultural elite are now regularly seen yawning openly in public (not so much brazenly or forgetfully as indifferently and “naturally”), unaware that it is an embarrassment to human self-command to be caught in the grip of involuntary bodily movements (like sneezing, belching, and hiccupping and even the involuntary bodily display of embarrassment itself, blushing). But eating on the street — even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat — displays in fact precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now; it cannot wait. Though the walking street eater still moves in the direction of his vision, he shows himself as a being led by his appetites. Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. Eating on the run does not even allow the human way of enjoying one’s food, for it is more like simple fueling; it is hard to savor or even to know what one is eating when the main point is to hurriedly fill the belly, now running on empty. This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.”

Kass, Leon: The Hungry Soul at 148-149. (University of Chicago Press, 1994, 1999)

Amazing. It’s sad and scary that this guy, and many others, think that their internalization of eternal truths like these, revealed to them by their parents, teachers, and clergy, should be taken seriously as arguments to guide public policy and oppose promising research.

By the way, I agree with almost all of what Pinker has to say in the article, and I think it’s worth a read if you have the time.

Here’s the embarrassing report on Human Dignity and Bioethics. It’s largely stupid, but I enjoyed Dennett’s article and his commentary on Kraynak.

It seems to me that Hillary Clinton’s continued competitiveness in these late primary elections (she just won big in West Virginia) may be a very bad sign for the Democrats’ chances in November.

It’s been very clear for quite a while that 1) the delegate math is such that Obama is a huge favorite to eventually win the nomination, and 2) the longer the primary goes on, the more damage it does to the eventual nominee’s chances of winning (more money wasted, more weaknesses exposed, more bad feelings of the losing faction, etc.).

If I were a Democratic voter in one of these primaries, and had a moderate preference for Clinton over Obama, but a strong preference for a Democrat victory in November, and I thought my single vote mattered, I’d probably vote for Obama to help stop the bleeding for the good of the party. I’m sure some of Clinton’s supporters have done just that.

So, the fact that there are so many voters who are still voting for Clinton in these primaries indicates (to me) that there are many, many, Democrats who have such a strong preference for Clinton and/or dislike of Obama that they are willing to risk helping the Republicans in November in order to express their preference now.

I don’t know how many of these people will fail to vote for Obama in the general election, but if I were a Democrat I’d be concerned about it.