Wirth1000.com has a nice Photoshop contest of Disney/Marvel Mashups.  Here is my favorite:

Throughout geekdom yesterday a panic spread over the purchase of Marvel by Disney.  Would we soon see IronMan and the Seven Dwarfs or The Little Mer-Hulk?  Artist Jeffrey Thomas takes a different approach.  What if Disney is influenced by Marvel the same way they have got a good swift kick in the butt by clearly superior animators Pixar?

This is my favorite, his new Marvelized rendition of Beauty and the Beast.  Click through for more, excellent art work.

Introduction

I have been putting a lot of thought into what defines my personal morality for some time now.  I came up with an idea a few years back, and I think it has survived the test of time and personal scrutiny.  It has also passed the scrutiny of several friends with whom I have discussed it.  For me all morality boils down to one rule with one caveat.

Rule and Caveat

Rule: Don’t do anything to another person that they consider harmful.

Caveat: Certain individuals (children, mentally incapable, etc) can be deemed by society as having that choice handled by others.

I have come to the conclusion that this statement covers everything I believe in.  The rule covers all major crimes that have some type of strict codification: murder, rape, theft, assault, kidnapping, etc.  It also means that I cannot force my beliefs on someone else.  And importantly, it means that if my dying friend needs help to leave this life, I can provide that help and it isn’t murder because he didn’t consider it harmful.

The caveat covers the case where the person in question is deemed to not have adequate judgment to tell what is harmful.  Society already makes this distinction, and so do I.  A child doesn’t know some things are bad or doesn’t yet have the maturity or experience to make that decision, so we as a society make it for them.  Children aren’t allowed to smoke or drink.  There are any number of other restrictions on children.  The same points can be applied to aging members of society with dementia, and those members of our society with mental health issues.  But we do give some choices to children.  And the choices that are handled by the children vs. family or society are determined by various criteria.  This caveat is not a hard line drawn in the sand.  Its a principle to be followed with judgment.

Justification

My justification seems to follow from the principle that we are self-aware beings.  We have choice and free will, or at least the illusion of such.  If you define being human in terms of being self-away and having free will, then it naturally follows that anything that constrains this is anti-human.  This is where I would squeeze in my idea of morality.  I have a free will and you have a free will; if we get in each others way then that is the point of conflict and the only possible point of morality.  Why follow any other artificial constructs?

Application of Personal Morality

All laws that do not agree with these moral principles are against them.  This is fundamental to the first (and only) rule of my morality.   For example, a law that limits two adult gay people from having a relationship is immoral.  If these two people are consenting, then their relationship isn’t breaking this moral rule.  But a law against it is.  This law is forcing onto these two people some other person’s belief systems.  These two people do not deem their relationship to be harmful to them, but they do deem this unwarranted intrusion harmful, so the law is immoral.

I think my morality boils down to this: freedom.  Pure and simple, freedom from everything and anything unless that anything is harmful to someone else.  Should I be able to smoke?  Yes.  Should I be able to smoke in a crowded restaurant where second hand smoke can cause other people harm?  No.  Should I be able to worship any deity I choose?  Yes.  Should I be able to make laws based on those religious beliefs that impact others? No.

Social Impact

Of course absolute rules of morality break down in a society where we have to share some resources for the good of all.  And if you carefully read my caveat, I am actually stating that I believe society or family needs some say over who gets full control of their own free will.  I am quite aware of the contradiction here.  This is a kind of recursive definition; I think if you exam many things in life you will find this type of self-referencing structure.  To be blunt I am not sure how to boil this down to a simpler explanation.  At some point society has to make a determination about others in that society.  I believe that determination should be as liberal as possible.  That is to say, that society should try to err on the side of free will as opposed to the side of enforcing restriction.  But the line has to be drawn somewhere.  And there are obvious barriers that should not be crossed.

What sacrifices to my own free will should I be willing to make to gain the benefits of society?  What do I contribute so that I have security and a better life in general?  Where do we force upon others these same sacrifices?  I live in a country (United States) where I am forced to pay taxes for a number of things I will never use myself, but can be argued help society as a whole.  A lot of it I would argue doesn’t help at all or actually hurts us.  I think this is where personal morality starts to run into social morality as stated above.  Should  we have a big military to protect us or a small military, or should the defense of our nation simply be up to individuals?  Should we have a central health care system or should health care be the responsibility of each citizen?  Where do we draw these social lines?  I don’t know where my moral principle draws a line on these issues, or if it even can.  This is the one place it really fails me.  But that is built in to the rule and caveat.  Its OK that it fails here.

Conclusion

In my personal life I think this morality has began to really serve me well.  I feel I am less judgmental of some  people, that I am more open minded.  I feel more at peace with my beliefs and the way they shape the way I live my life.  I feel less trouble trying to justify myself.  And I also feel that if I make a bad decision that I have the flexibility and freedom to change, to say what I did was immoral and change my opinion or my actions.  Carying around the luggage of a strict religious doctrine makes this much more difficult.  Carrying around a simple, derived from the nature of existence system seems unencumbering yet fair.

I don’t personally like the politics behind Cash for Clunkers.  I believe in small government and free markets.  I mean, really believe in them, not just as a political slogan the way the GOP does.  Having said that, I find the numbers interesting:

• $1 billion dollars in the initial government investment
• $3500 to $4500 offered for a clunker depending on various criteria
• To date the cars being purchased are averaging about 10 mpg better than those they are replacing.  Specifically, the average of those traded in is 15.8 mpg and the replacements is 25.4 mpg.
• The national average for a gallon of gas is currently $2.57
• The federal government estimates the average car drives around 15k miles per year
• The federal government estimates US drivers in total will use 345 million gallons per day in 2009.

Let’s guesstimate that the average money given to a consumer is $4k per car.  When the initial $1bn is used up (most likely sometime this week) about 250k cars will have been sold.  If we assume that these cars are being driven 15k miles a year (both the car being replaced and the new car) and the average of those autos went from 15.8 mpg to 25.4 mpg then we are taking 359 million gallons of consumption per year off the market.  In contrast if we took $1bn and just bought gas we could afford about 389 million gallons of gas.  This program will break even in a year and a week.  These are obviously very rough numbers.  And when one considers that we use about 345 million gallons per day, we have only removed one day of usage from the road per year for the $1 billion spent.  Obviously this trend cannot continue forever.  We cannot spend $36.5 billion and reduce our gasoline consumption by 10%.  If we could, it would be an easy sell.  Right now we have removed almost 0.3% of gasoline demand.

Each of these consumers will save about $922 a year with their new car in reduced fuel consumption.  It amazes me that people weren’t already upgrading on their own.   Many of these clunkers would probably get some minimal trade in value, say $1k.  These individuals would have seen a benefit in 4 years in reduced fuel consumption.  Of course all of this is neglecting both the benefits of less environmental impact and less reliance on foreign oil, but we haven’t made a huge dent in either.  That is not to say we should not try.  Of course we can pay for those 250k deals with the cutting of seven unneeded F 22 fighters.

Its also worth noting that 10 MPG is a big change, but when you think of the actual mileages involved its actually a 61% increase in efficiency.

From a free markets perspective, I don’t really like this program.  Its taking our tax dollars and rewarding specific consumers and specific businesses.  From a pragmatic perspective, it seems like it has done remarkably well so far.  I would like to see this also offered with more stringent MPG requirements for used cars as well, if they are going to continue the program.

Sources:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914602,00.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/ford-focus-tops-rebate-purchases/?nl=wheels&emc=wheelsa1

I just watched Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut and Superman Returns back to back.  First I want to discuss Richard Donner’s Superman II.  I have to say, it is better than the original  It has much more heart than the original, and while it is still cheesy, it is much more intelligent.  And I think some of the cheese is just the era and the technology available to the film makers.

I would have to agree with the the Wikipedia article: this is a different movie.  While the basic story line is the same, there are many new scenes.  The movie actually reminds me of many newer comic book movies right from the start.  Many of the plot elements make more sense in this cut.  Some of the effects are a little sub-par even for the time, but this is because Donner and Co. had to take some scenes from screen tests because Donner was fired (apparently for no good reason) before he could finish the film, and was replaced with another director.  In the end it is a better movie.  Its too bad Donner was unable to continue with the series.  The Superman franchise really went down hill after II.

Well, until Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns.  Singer intended for Superman Returns to pick up right where Superman II left off.  Of course, he might have better explained this at the beginning of Superman Returns.  If you watch the “old” Superman II, and then Superman Returns, things do make better sense.  But with the new version, there is a some small inconsistency.  Film makers, in general, don’t get concepts of time travel and I will leave it at that.

I read about this plot continuity before I attended Superman Returns in the theatre so I “got it”, but going in I was really hoping Singer would put in some sort of explanation al la the beginning of Spiderman 2.  How cool would it have been to have some sort of morph from Christopher Reeve to Brandon Routh?

Here are  few names you might recongize:

1. BB King
2. The Beatles
3. Van Halen
4. Jeff Beck
5. Your mother

Ok, so that last one isnt’t so appropriate.  But the first four are people that belong to music imortality.  Lets all guess who they say is the man that is responsibly for modern music:

1. Les Paul
2. Les Paul
3. Les Paul
4. Les Paul
5. Les Paul

That’s right!  Even yo mutha likes Les Paul.  Why could that be?  Well, lets throw away his prolific career as one of the greatest guitarists ever.  Let us just consider that he invented the solid body guitar, the electrical guitar, multi-track record and a little thing called reverb.   FUCK!  You need to stand down.  This guy owns you!

Les Paul was a legend in his own time as a guitarist, and let so many others be legends for future generations. Just ask anyone.  Like Paul McCarteney.  Or Eddie Van Halen.  Or BB King.

Les Paul has been a personal hero of mine of some time.  If you get a chance please watch Let Paul, Chasing the Sound.

Lester Polfuss, you fucking rock!

I purchase the Line 6 Spider III amp as a late birthday present for myself a couple of weeks ago.  It has been a while since I have had a working amp.  Sometime during various moves the little practice amp I purchased in High School got fried.  

My first impression shopping for amps was how inexpensive they had become.  I paid $99 for my amp.  In high school or college 15 years ago I would have paid much, much more for the features that came with the amp.  It has a number of built-in effects and a noise gate.  It also has four assignable presets, similar to a traditional car radio.  I can dial in a clean, a crunch, a full-out heavy metal roar, and a clean/chorus for various songs.  The only thing I missed out on buying the cheaper Spider is that I cannot buy a foot switch for the modes, but really, I am never going to play in front of people with the thing!

I have never been a very good guitar player.  When I was in high school I hung out with some talented musicians that had formed a heavy metal band.  I decided to get into guitar.  I purchased an Epiphone Explorer at a pawn shop for $150, and bought the cheapest Crate amp at the local shop that had distortion.  Soon I was memorizing Enter Sandman.

In college I like to play occasionally.  One summer I was in a pawn shop (reoccuring theme) with my father and found my Gibson Les Paul.  It was a steal (perhaps literally?).  There are various models of Les Paul guitars.  I had found the expensive one, the one that sales for $2500 new.  We picked it up for just under $400.

I played (perhaps too strong of a word) this guitar that is much too nice for its owner for several years until I finally ordered a replacement pick guard and a couple of knobs to replace missing hardware on the guitar.  It was time to buy an amp.  So here I am.  I have a beautiful axe and an amp that rocks.  No excuse left!

I now find myself trying to do some small justice to my axe.  I have started relearning guitar.  I am taking a two-pronged approach.  One prong is simply to relearn songs I knew 10 years ago.  I started with Enter Sandman.  Prong two is to start learning properly.  I have started relearning the scales and chords.  The last couple of nights I have spent trying to play the E Minor scale up and down.  On guitar E Minor is the de facto scale.  While there is plenty of music written in different scales, E Minor is very popular because the traditional guitar tuning starts with E on the low string and end with E on the high string. Additionally, all of the open strings are notes in E Minor.

Notice I said trying in the previous paragraph.  Man, it seems like I can kinda remember the intro for Sandman, or the chorus, but playing a scale is turning into a challenge.  Well, playing it slowly isn’t  a challenge.  But I keep wanted to strum up and down the scale rapidly like I knew I could do at one time.

I have set a goal for myself.  I want to be able to play guitar with the proficiency I had in college by this next winter.  I wonder if I will be able to stick with it.  I hope so, because I remember that playing used to provide me with a lot of joy.

I went to view the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek this weekend at the Alamo Drafthouse at noon on Saturday.  I was excited for two reasons.  First, I have been a Star Trek fan for many years.  Since First Contact, the Star Trek movies have really languished.   I was interested in seeing what would be done with the franchise.

Second, I have always enjoyed J.J. Abrams work.  Alias is one of my favorite shows.  I also enjoyed Mission Impossible 3, which was written and directed by Abrams.  So how would his treatment of Star Trek work?

Awesome.  Star Trek was a pure joy to watch.  It looked good.  The acting was spot on.  The story was classic Star Trek.  Without giving too much away, Abrams et. al. have created an interesting new Star Trek that breaks slightly with the original while leaving much intact and not destroying continuity.  You may have heard rumors about time travel on the internets, but I am not going to give anything away.  Go see the movie.

My wife, who is not a trekkie in the least, also really enjoyed the movie.  She and I both noticed how much humor is in this one, which is something that has occasionally been lacking in past installments.  Also, the movie never really rests.  Don’t go for a bathroom break.  You WILL miss plot and action.

I am excited to see it again on Wednesday, when a group from work is going to see the movie for lunch.  The Alamo is going to make plenty of money off me this week.