Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Injustice

I was in a car this evening, and three of the local rock radio stations were simultaneously playing songs (three different ones) by The Eagles.  For a moment, I had a brilliant stroke of optimism and thought that someone must have finally decided to assassinate self-important buffoon at-large Don Henley.  Alas, no such luck. 

But then I got to thinking. Which would be the greater advance from the point of view of justice, the painful death of Henley, or that of Billy Joel?  Tough call. And John Rawls is of no help to us here....


28 comments:

Anonymous said...

HAHAHA! Murder is really funny!

Anonymous said...

It seems that Rawls can give us some help, if only we can decide whether fan of The Eagles or Billy Joel are the 'worst-off' in society.

Anonymous said...

hey cease and desist longing for my painful death Spiros.
Billy Joel

Anonymous said...

Those guys are some primary bads. Maximin both of those mofos.

Anonymous said...

Joel and Henley (& their fans) are the unreasonable. We must contain them like war and disease.

As you Were,
The Ghost of John Rawls

The Dude said...

I hate the fucking Eagles, man.

Anonymous said...

Henley for sure. Have you heard Boys in Summer?

Anonymous said...

I understand that the Secret Service's new moniker for the President is "Don Henley", so you'd better expect a call from them soon. (They were going to use "Ted Nugent" but that didn't work out.) I'd put lots of booze on ice, speed-dial for the local brothels, and lawyer up.

Anonymous said...

Spiros don't live in the US, bro. Bring it.

Anonymous said...

Henley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm-o7_VVAoU

Anonymous said...

This might be funny, if all the music Spiros linked to wasn't complete shit on a stick. Here's the analogy: Spiros is the Twilight fan looking down on Harry Potter.

Anonymous said...

Doc Watson has a posse:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/doc-watson-dead-dies_n_1554478.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyQOCJ4SUSk

Glaucon said...

@11:35pm:

I'm guessing that with your head wedged up your ass you can't hear the difference between Hüsker Dü and Billy Joel.

Pop your noggin out, wipe it down (state law requires that you do so before returning to work), and open your ears.

Dipshit.

Anonymous said...

Self-important buffoon, eh?

Anonymous said...

11:35 and 10:14: Spy vs Spy.

Spiros, I agree that Rawlsian justice is a wash here based on indifference of auditory-lobe injury. But Kant's maybe? Given the traditions of God's affinity for stuff like the Gregorian chant and Wonderful Grace of Jesus, that's still a tough call. "We Didn't Start the Fire" merges both, so maybe God favors Joel over Henley, who's more of a consistently Grace of Jesus guy.

So Catholicism 1, Protestantism 0 in favor of Joel. Henley goes to hell; Joel at least to purgatory (based on free will choices to write music). Just?

Anonymous said...

Glaucon, Anon 11.35 here. I I can tell the difference between Billy Joel and Hüsker Dü. I can also tell the difference between Harry Potter and Twilight. I've read a couple of Harry Potter books. They were quite fun. But the idea that I would go to the wall to defend them as literature (as opposed to pulp entertainment) is laughable. The idea that I would get worked up about whether they were better than some other pulp entertainment is also laughable. Hüsker Dü is also pulp entertainment. It's fine to enjoy it, but getting worked up about it just shows that you have no musical knowledge. It's sociologically interesting that smart people do this (bet you don't get worked up about "dogs playing poker" paintings vs. thomas kinkade; you probably think that you have artistic taste - and maybe you do). In music, for some reason, its fine to pride yourself on your allegiance to some shit rather than some other shit. Again, that's sociologically interesting. But no one with any genuine musicality would get involved (though there is no reason to think that someone with genuine musicality might not have a preference for Hüsker Dü over Billy Joel, or vice versa).

Glaucon said...

11:35/8:47~

Yeah, you're right. My comment shows that I have no musical knowledge, that I am someone without any genuine musicality.

I do find solace, however, in being sociologically interesting. Thank goodness for that.

But I'm all worked up from going to the wall, so I'm going to take a Xanax.

Anonymous said...

Glad I helped, Glaucon. Now go read some Bourdieu.

Anonymous said...

Yes, do go read some Bourdieu. It's very important to learn how to parrot others' ideas, even to the point of trying to write comments on blog threads in their idiom... Now try some thinking.

Anonymous said...

A big shout out to Anon 11:44! I just refereed the paper you submitted. You're the one who spent the first two pages on how it is wrong to ever cite anyone else, and how you were going to work everything out from first principles yourself. Sorry if the rejection was a bit harsh, dude. Some people just aren't cut out to be philosophers. I'm sure there is a great niche for you in the service industry. Or maybe you could be a rock critic! The world's your oyster, dude!

Anonymous said...

12:00am: can you say "false dichotomy"? It's like a "binary opposition," but precise.

Anonymous said...

I have just over a week left until of the academic year. I have sabbatical coming up. Can we make time move faster yet?

Anonymous said...

12:00am should also look up the difference between use and mention. Also it's a classic move among continental dimwits to assume that if you've not drunk their preferred kool-aid (the kind that gets you to think that philosophy consists in simply reiterating what their favorite thinkers have said) you're ignorant of what their favorite thinkers have said. Useless.

Anonymous said...

12:00 here. What makes 3:24 and 12:29 think I'm a conti? I guess you could be more wrong, but it would take some kind of superpower. I cited someone who was French. Therefore I'm a conti. No wonder you think that death metal is fucking art. For the record, Bourdieu (a sociologist) has a good analysis of how those lacking in cultural capital make up for it by intellectualising entertainment. That's not an argument (I'm being helpful here; I doubt you could tell otherwise). It's a reading suggestion.

Anonymous said...

What makes 12:00/6:44 think that 3:24 and 12:29 think that "death metal is fucking art"? As far as I can see, there's no claim in either post about death metal or art. Good reading skills. I will definitely take intellectual advice from you.

Anonymous said...

Far better to intellectualize the intellectualization of entertainment.

I don't know whether anyone thinks you're a continentalist but if anyone does, it's probably because not because of the name you've dropped but instead because you're pretty bad at reasoning and yet take yourself to be entitled to treat others as your students. Just speculating.

Anonymous said...

Wow everyone is really tense.

Wish I could share a doobie with my favourite jerks at phil anon.

The greatest advancement of justice would be served if neither of them made a record again.

Anonymous said...

So this is who you are, Spiros...

http://productivityofculture.org/a-z/spyros-mercouris