I’m Dreaming of a S’awright Christmas

So, it came to me just before I went to bed last night. I wrote it down, so I wouldn’t forget it: the title for a great Christmas carol parody. I got up this morning and planned to write the rest.

And couldn’t get past the first line.

So, rather than cobble together something sub-par, I’ll leave you to imagine it in all its glory, the Christmas parody that wasn’t: “Señor Wenceslas.”

Ad-venn-tures in Comedy

Here’s my rip-off homage to the grand tradition of Venn Diagram-related humor.

An incomplete list of things I don’t know

  • The musical term for the rising inflection/voice cracking thing that you often hear singers do in Irish music, such as at the end of nearly every line in the Cranberries’ “Zombie.”
  • Where to find honey-roasted walnuts, outside of Steak ‘n’ Shake salads.
  • Why anyone in their right minds would name a cemetery “Resurrection Cemetery.” That’s just begging for a zombie invasion.

Songs in the Key of e (~2.71828)

So, I was listening to my iPod earlier, and I realized that I have a lot of geeky music on it (which I love). It occurs to me also that there’s probably a lot of geeky music out there that I haven’t heard. So the concept of the post is simple: I’m-a list some of my favorite science geek songs, and if there’s anything I’ve missed, let me know. Just science this time ’round; I might do lit-geek stuff later (and I’ve already got a similar post on superhero songs in the work at the other blog). So, just off the top of my head, in no particular order, there’s…

  • Jonathan Coulton – “That Spells DNA” – Genetics
  • “Weird Al” Yankovic – “Pancreas” – Anatomy/Endocrinology
  • They Might Be Giants – “Mammal” – Zoology/Taxonomy (I’ve heard a slightly convincing argument from a certain solid state professor that “Particle Man” is about Particle Physics, in which “Triangle Man” is the Del operator, but I’m not sure how well that flies)
  • They Might Be Giants – “Why Does the Sun Shine?” – Astrophysics
  • Moxy Früvous – “The Mitosis Waltz” – Cell Biology
  • Moxy Früvous – “Entropy” – Thermodynamics
  • Thomas Dolby – “She Blinded Me With Science” – General Science
  • Oingo Boingo – “Weird Science” – General Science
  • MC Hawking – Pretty much everything: “Big Bizang,” “Entropy,” “UFT for the MC,” “Fuck the Creationists,” “What We Need More of is Science,” “E=MC Hawking” – Astrophysics, Cosmology, Evolutionary Biology, General Relativity, Thermodynamics, Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Skepticism, General Science
  • Tom Lehrer – “The Elements” – Chemistry (A classic)

What are your favorites?

Mims’ Second Treatise on Hotness

It’s scary when other people start thinking like me.

Hat tip to Jon.

An Essay Concerning My Hotness

By Mims

In my various travels across the United States, I sometimes find that my hotness is in question. In a recent trip to Chicago, for instance, I was asked how I achieved this hotness. I was taken aback by the query; after all, it seems self-evident to me. In my mind, there is no need for explanation; I see the proof of my hotness in my unfettered access to quality automobiles, in the variety of female companionship which I am able to frequently and effortlessly attain, and of course in the way that my very presence at a dance hall seems to cause the patrons to oscillate. Indeed, I have been known to suggest that my popularity is so well-assured that I could record an album in the style of John Cage’s infamous 4’33” and said album would still sell a million copies. I have yet to attempt this, however.

But, in the interest of informing those ignorant of my hotness and silencing my critics, I have drafted this treatise to explore the philosophical underpinnings of my hotness.

The first argument is simply stated:
P1: If I am fly, then I am hot.
P2: I am fly.
∴ C1: I am hot.

And, I present the inverse, as a reminder to my critics:
P3: If you are not fly, then you are not hot.
P4: You are not fly.
∴ C2: You are not hot.

I thought this would settle the matter, but some of my critics seem to require empirical proof to demonstrate my hotness (or alternatively, my flyness). The assessment of my flyness is not entirely subjective; I have had it independently confirmed. In that same recent journey to Chicago, while my compatriots complimented my choice in clothing, they too claimed that I was, in fact, fly. While I’m sure this will not satisfy some of my more hard-nosed critics, it serves to demonstrate the point that I have not merely fabricated rumors of my flyness.

But, since flyness is something of an ephemeral quality, I feel the only true measure of it is the judgment of others. So, I offer this final ontological argument, in support of the first.
P5: An observer has the idea of a quality called “flyness.”
P6: This idea is held by multiple observers
∴ C3 (P5, P6): This idea is not specific to any single observer and must originate from outside the observers.
P7: Multiple observers have determined that I possess the quality of flyness.
P8: Observers draw information from the outside world based on their senses.
∴ C4 (P7, P8): The observers must have sensed the quality of flyness in me in order to make their judgment.
∴ C5 (C4): I must possess the quality of flyness (I am fly).
∴ C6 (P1, C5): I am hot.

And that is why I’m hot.