I have a theory. My theory is that lesbians are more likely to have lower singing voices than straight women. I don't have enough data to back this up, so I need more. Cross-referenced lists. Actual studies. Anecdotes. More anecdotes.
Here's where I'm getting my data from. Personally, I'm a solid tenor, which really freaks people out. Lucas Silveira is definitely an alto. So is Amanda Palmer. Kaia Wilson rarely strays above the mid-mezzo-soprano range at the highest. It's blashphemy, I know, but I don't own any of Melissa Etheridge or k.d. lang's music, so someone who does, please fill me in here. And I need even more data than this very short paragraph.
Of course, counterpoints to my theory are also welcome.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Music to crank up
I never liked most modern rock, and definitely not this emo thing, or the very creepy stalker themes often found in modern rock and all over what few videos are still on MTV. As far as I've been concerned, Death Cab for Cutie would never be played through my speakers. Now it's midnight, I have the windows open, and I've enthusiastically cranked up their song I Will Possess Your Heart. What gives, right? The music.
I was channel surfing the radio the other night when this incredibly haunting, dissonant bassline, with an absolutely chilling piano solo over it, and a very technical drumbeat came on NPR. It was like a cross between Pink Floyd, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Rush on barbiturates. Four minutes later, when the vocals came in, it was revealed to be a very disturbing stalker song, more so than The Police's Every Breath you Take, because these guys obviously think his will get them anything but a restraining order.
Musically, it is kind of a trance raga, darker and more dissonant than Shine on you Crazy Diamond, but not as wildly varied and psychedelic as The End. The fact that the band is literally playing in a freezer does not seem out of place for this video. Variations on a very simple theme and a killer piano tone combine to make for four minutes of icewater in your veins. The next four minutes are equally unvaried and consistent in their cognitive dissonace (at least for anyone not raised on this stuff), and will leave you clicking the repeat button and cranking up the bass more than once. The thin but smooth voice that Ben Gibbard has, as well as the look he has in the video of being on the edge of a nervous breakdown passes on to the listener that feeling of walking on thin emotional ice.
Overall, if you liked Pink Floyd's Wish you Were Here album, you owe it to yourself to give I Will Possess your Heart a listen.
And, apparently, youtube's embed code won't lead to a video right now, so I'll just say look it up, and I'll embed the damn video tomorrow.
I was channel surfing the radio the other night when this incredibly haunting, dissonant bassline, with an absolutely chilling piano solo over it, and a very technical drumbeat came on NPR. It was like a cross between Pink Floyd, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Rush on barbiturates. Four minutes later, when the vocals came in, it was revealed to be a very disturbing stalker song, more so than The Police's Every Breath you Take, because these guys obviously think his will get them anything but a restraining order.
Musically, it is kind of a trance raga, darker and more dissonant than Shine on you Crazy Diamond, but not as wildly varied and psychedelic as The End. The fact that the band is literally playing in a freezer does not seem out of place for this video. Variations on a very simple theme and a killer piano tone combine to make for four minutes of icewater in your veins. The next four minutes are equally unvaried and consistent in their cognitive dissonace (at least for anyone not raised on this stuff), and will leave you clicking the repeat button and cranking up the bass more than once. The thin but smooth voice that Ben Gibbard has, as well as the look he has in the video of being on the edge of a nervous breakdown passes on to the listener that feeling of walking on thin emotional ice.
Overall, if you liked Pink Floyd's Wish you Were Here album, you owe it to yourself to give I Will Possess your Heart a listen.
And, apparently, youtube's embed code won't lead to a video right now, so I'll just say look it up, and I'll embed the damn video tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
No Excuse
If I were the right age, I'd probably be in the Air Force right now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90706543
Federal court rules against military gays policy
from The Associated Press
SEATTLE May 21, 2008, 10:49 pm ET · The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.
The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.
The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.
Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.
But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.
Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.
Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.
She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."
The appeals court judges disagreed.
"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.
One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."
Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.
Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."
"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"
An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.
Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."
Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."
Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.
"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90706543
Federal court rules against military gays policy
from The Associated Press
SEATTLE May 21, 2008, 10:49 pm ET · The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.
The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.
The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.
Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.
But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.
Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.
Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.
She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."
The appeals court judges disagreed.
"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.
One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."
Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.
Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."
"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"
An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.
Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."
Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."
Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.
"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Cult of Global Warming and the Temple of Speed
Golbal warming is a lie. Now let me elaborate. The carbon in fossil fuels came from living things. That carbon was once in the carbon cycle. Life was fine. We have precise data going back 650,000 years or so. The carbon in the most recent oil deposits was trapped 65 million years ago. But we have evidence that there was life.
Evolution kills. It's not just a t-shirt slogan, it's a fact. People weep over each species that goes extinct, and although each of those species is irreplacable, another will take its place. If it's niche is destroyed, then nothing will fill the space beacuse there is no space. Having the planet warm a few degrees will not be the end of the world. It has happened before. We know it has, because ALL of that carbon was once in the atmosphere and in plants, and we have "evidence" that CO2 on its own causes heating. Life thrived. There's a 12 foot long dragonfly hanging from the ceiling of the museum to prove it.
I put "evidence" in quotes because that assumption could just as easily be ass-backward. Higher temperatures cause more plant growth and more plant decay, as well as greater and faster decay of animals, which all release CO2. The shirt doesn't match because it's ugly, or it's ugly because it doesn't match? You be the judge. Either way, you're not going out in that, are you?
The plantet will warm if we reintroduce this carbon into the atmosphere. The different heating pattern will cause climate change. Dry spots become wet. Wet spots become dry. Dry spots stay dry, wet spots stay wet. The system will be different, and it will put a strain on local affairs on scale to dwarf the dust bowl. Indivisual people will be screwed. The human species will either adapt, or nuke ourselves. On the global scale, farmland will have moved, but the crops will still be able to get anywhere. Who knew I'd ever argue for globalization, eh?
Let's talk about "alternative" fuels. Or solar energy, or wind. Covering eastern Colorado with wind turbines like they're corn will rob the wind of its energy, and mean no storms in Kansas. Yay, no tornadoes, right? Wrong. No rain. Climate altered on a scale so complete and ruinous that all the carbon dioxide in the world cannot compete with. Your energy has to come from somewhere, you know.
What about putting solar power all over? That means less heat warming the planet and fueling life, instead fueling its destruction. Try removing one third of the heat in the room you're in right now. Fucking freezing, isn't it? We'll have changed the climate near each solar farm more comprehensively than CO2 ever could.
Hydrogen. That's dumb. That's really the best way to describe a substance that requires massive amounts of electricity (from one of the methods above, most likely), and burns to produce a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. There's a reason why the tempuraute drops twenty degrees less on a cloudy night than a clear one. You guessed it, the thing keeping your tomatoes from freezing is the greenhouse effect. Hydrogen power will give us one or more of the problems listed above, and STILL not fix our so-called greenhouse gas problem.
Corn ethanol. We've been through this. Turning your food into food for your self-righteous little Civic is a road to starvation, for the both of you. We need to distill fuels from what is currently pure waste, and is burned or allowed to decompose. Wood alcohol is the way to go. Fermenting and distilling the corn stalks instead of the corn ears is the way to go. Hell, your grass clippings could power your truck for a while.
When we use wood methanol and waste-material ethanol to power our vehicles, we can emit as much carbon dioxide as we bloody well please and not change the climate one iota (aside from urban smog from still air), since all of that carbon dioxide will have just come from the carbon cycle itself. We'll be feeding life.
_______________________________
The real issue threatening our livelihoods today is the end of "cheap" oil. By cheap, I really do mean $120, $130 a barrel. As oil gets more and more expensive, it will put more and more of a strain on our system until it snaps. That may come in the form of a massive recession, it may come in the form of a world war, and it may do both. Then, life as we know it will be forever changed. Ever seen Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior? That'll be a damn documentary if we keep going like we are. I personally support effecive United States military presence in the Middle East. I'll elaborate on that later. But suffice it to say, I believe in securing our fuel. End of story.
_______________________________
Carmakers: Especially Detroit, you need to get it through your thick skulls that you need to increase your vehicles' power:cubic inches:weight ratio. Yes, that's a three part ratio. Hotrodders have known it for longer than you board members have been alive. The real way to meet American demands for power is to improve that ratio. Gas milage will be improved, trust me. It'll be a side effect of being able to get the same performance numbers out of less gas, less volume. The Europeans know what's up. They've heard the gospel of Economy. They could do better, but the're willing to make concerted efforts to improve their numbers, rather than make excuses for laziness.
I'll admit, I worship at the temple of Horsepower and Speed. I want it, I want to channel it, I want to express it better, I want to have it at my beck and call, and I know I'm not the only one. What Sunday services mean to us is getting back from church and watching stock car racing. It's taping IRL racing while singing hymns. It's bench racing (and maybe some real runs) before sitting down to fried chicken. I'll drive a damn small-block tank of a car for two years after gas cost me $20 a gallon. But I'll be smart about it. Drive properly. Use alternative combustion fuels. Squeeze every last drop of power out of every last drop of fuel come hell or high water. I'll get 150 miles to the gallon on vintage Springfield iron before the carmakers pull their thumbs out of their asses and get innovating.
Can you say DOHC eight valve V-twin? Bring on the failures until it works. S&S could do it. They're probably working on it. In the meantime, how about it? I know there's enough talent in this country to pull it off? A true American sportbike.
Evolution kills. It's not just a t-shirt slogan, it's a fact. People weep over each species that goes extinct, and although each of those species is irreplacable, another will take its place. If it's niche is destroyed, then nothing will fill the space beacuse there is no space. Having the planet warm a few degrees will not be the end of the world. It has happened before. We know it has, because ALL of that carbon was once in the atmosphere and in plants, and we have "evidence" that CO2 on its own causes heating. Life thrived. There's a 12 foot long dragonfly hanging from the ceiling of the museum to prove it.
I put "evidence" in quotes because that assumption could just as easily be ass-backward. Higher temperatures cause more plant growth and more plant decay, as well as greater and faster decay of animals, which all release CO2. The shirt doesn't match because it's ugly, or it's ugly because it doesn't match? You be the judge. Either way, you're not going out in that, are you?
The plantet will warm if we reintroduce this carbon into the atmosphere. The different heating pattern will cause climate change. Dry spots become wet. Wet spots become dry. Dry spots stay dry, wet spots stay wet. The system will be different, and it will put a strain on local affairs on scale to dwarf the dust bowl. Indivisual people will be screwed. The human species will either adapt, or nuke ourselves. On the global scale, farmland will have moved, but the crops will still be able to get anywhere. Who knew I'd ever argue for globalization, eh?
Let's talk about "alternative" fuels. Or solar energy, or wind. Covering eastern Colorado with wind turbines like they're corn will rob the wind of its energy, and mean no storms in Kansas. Yay, no tornadoes, right? Wrong. No rain. Climate altered on a scale so complete and ruinous that all the carbon dioxide in the world cannot compete with. Your energy has to come from somewhere, you know.
What about putting solar power all over? That means less heat warming the planet and fueling life, instead fueling its destruction. Try removing one third of the heat in the room you're in right now. Fucking freezing, isn't it? We'll have changed the climate near each solar farm more comprehensively than CO2 ever could.
Hydrogen. That's dumb. That's really the best way to describe a substance that requires massive amounts of electricity (from one of the methods above, most likely), and burns to produce a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. There's a reason why the tempuraute drops twenty degrees less on a cloudy night than a clear one. You guessed it, the thing keeping your tomatoes from freezing is the greenhouse effect. Hydrogen power will give us one or more of the problems listed above, and STILL not fix our so-called greenhouse gas problem.
Corn ethanol. We've been through this. Turning your food into food for your self-righteous little Civic is a road to starvation, for the both of you. We need to distill fuels from what is currently pure waste, and is burned or allowed to decompose. Wood alcohol is the way to go. Fermenting and distilling the corn stalks instead of the corn ears is the way to go. Hell, your grass clippings could power your truck for a while.
When we use wood methanol and waste-material ethanol to power our vehicles, we can emit as much carbon dioxide as we bloody well please and not change the climate one iota (aside from urban smog from still air), since all of that carbon dioxide will have just come from the carbon cycle itself. We'll be feeding life.
_______________________________
The real issue threatening our livelihoods today is the end of "cheap" oil. By cheap, I really do mean $120, $130 a barrel. As oil gets more and more expensive, it will put more and more of a strain on our system until it snaps. That may come in the form of a massive recession, it may come in the form of a world war, and it may do both. Then, life as we know it will be forever changed. Ever seen Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior? That'll be a damn documentary if we keep going like we are. I personally support effecive United States military presence in the Middle East. I'll elaborate on that later. But suffice it to say, I believe in securing our fuel. End of story.
_______________________________
Carmakers: Especially Detroit, you need to get it through your thick skulls that you need to increase your vehicles' power:cubic inches:weight ratio. Yes, that's a three part ratio. Hotrodders have known it for longer than you board members have been alive. The real way to meet American demands for power is to improve that ratio. Gas milage will be improved, trust me. It'll be a side effect of being able to get the same performance numbers out of less gas, less volume. The Europeans know what's up. They've heard the gospel of Economy. They could do better, but the're willing to make concerted efforts to improve their numbers, rather than make excuses for laziness.
I'll admit, I worship at the temple of Horsepower and Speed. I want it, I want to channel it, I want to express it better, I want to have it at my beck and call, and I know I'm not the only one. What Sunday services mean to us is getting back from church and watching stock car racing. It's taping IRL racing while singing hymns. It's bench racing (and maybe some real runs) before sitting down to fried chicken. I'll drive a damn small-block tank of a car for two years after gas cost me $20 a gallon. But I'll be smart about it. Drive properly. Use alternative combustion fuels. Squeeze every last drop of power out of every last drop of fuel come hell or high water. I'll get 150 miles to the gallon on vintage Springfield iron before the carmakers pull their thumbs out of their asses and get innovating.
Can you say DOHC eight valve V-twin? Bring on the failures until it works. S&S could do it. They're probably working on it. In the meantime, how about it? I know there's enough talent in this country to pull it off? A true American sportbike.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Recommended reading
I have recently had the dubious pleasure of reading Jared Diamond's book Collapse. The subject matter in itself is compelling, but the actual process of reading any of Professor Diamond's work leaves one with a feeling akin to that of a dislocated jaw. Diamond fails to cohesively tie his theme together, and builds many of his arguments on propaganda techniques such as exaggeration and straw-man fallacies. I believet his is not intentional, but nonetheless, it is uncomfortable. These failings pervade through all of his work that I have encountered.
This is not to say that one should not read this book. Collapse provides a quality compilation of information on modern economic events in North America and around the world, if not balanced coverage, instead focusing on a few selected regions. I recommend that you read at least part of the book, but plan plenty of time and at least two asprins.
On the other hand, Laurence Gonzales' book Deep Survival is a fluid, easy read, with effective theses throughout, tying together into the larger whole. This is a book with gestalt. It will intrigue, compel, and terrify you in turns, and you will not regret the time you put into reading it again and again. Gonzales has done excellent research and, unlike Diamond, fully substantiates each of his statements, leaving you entirely without that disquieting feeling of having no ground under you feet. Compiling vastly different accounts of survival, death, and psychology, Deep Survival is a must-read.
Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception has become a timeless favortie of The Doors devotees, and although it is a very well-written account of a mescaline trip, it falls short of the book it was once bound with, Heaven and Hell. In the former, Huxley describes, with a writer's clarity and a scholar's detail, the experience of taking peyote. However, in the latter, Huxley expands on these themes in an interesting analysis of mythology and psychology, focusing on where they meet in the realm of the subconscious brought to light by psychedelics in the proper setting.
Although far shorter than Deep Survival, Heaven and Hell is not a book to read in one sitting. Instead, one will find it necessary to set down the book and reflect, allowing the connections made to fully sink in. Fortunately, if one desired, both books, Heaven and Hell and The Doors of Perception, can be read quickly without confusion, headache, or a dull fury at the author. I would not recommend doing so, however, since you would miss out on the sort of subtle nuance that lends itself to a unique interpretation each time it is read. This is a book to buy and take notes in the marigins, which you will find yourself doing again and again.
This is not to say that one should not read this book. Collapse provides a quality compilation of information on modern economic events in North America and around the world, if not balanced coverage, instead focusing on a few selected regions. I recommend that you read at least part of the book, but plan plenty of time and at least two asprins.
On the other hand, Laurence Gonzales' book Deep Survival is a fluid, easy read, with effective theses throughout, tying together into the larger whole. This is a book with gestalt. It will intrigue, compel, and terrify you in turns, and you will not regret the time you put into reading it again and again. Gonzales has done excellent research and, unlike Diamond, fully substantiates each of his statements, leaving you entirely without that disquieting feeling of having no ground under you feet. Compiling vastly different accounts of survival, death, and psychology, Deep Survival is a must-read.
Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception has become a timeless favortie of The Doors devotees, and although it is a very well-written account of a mescaline trip, it falls short of the book it was once bound with, Heaven and Hell. In the former, Huxley describes, with a writer's clarity and a scholar's detail, the experience of taking peyote. However, in the latter, Huxley expands on these themes in an interesting analysis of mythology and psychology, focusing on where they meet in the realm of the subconscious brought to light by psychedelics in the proper setting.
Although far shorter than Deep Survival, Heaven and Hell is not a book to read in one sitting. Instead, one will find it necessary to set down the book and reflect, allowing the connections made to fully sink in. Fortunately, if one desired, both books, Heaven and Hell and The Doors of Perception, can be read quickly without confusion, headache, or a dull fury at the author. I would not recommend doing so, however, since you would miss out on the sort of subtle nuance that lends itself to a unique interpretation each time it is read. This is a book to buy and take notes in the marigins, which you will find yourself doing again and again.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Welcome: how's ya like it? (the rant)
As an aside from my main blog, Your Daily Redneck Moment, I will be putting in my two cents on political issues, doubletalk on both sides, and tossing in some philosophy just for good measure.
First of all, I would like to ask all three presidential candidates, as well as all of the news media, what the fuck? Seriously, I've been asking for clarification, telling you to shut up, or explaining why I don't even care about whatever you're freaking out about, but no matter how loud I talk to the TV, all ya'll don't listen. I know I haven't been the only one shouting at my TV during some of these televised events. On behalf of all of us, who do you think you are, and where do you get off telling us what to think?
Global warming: not a lie, but definitely bad science. In the past, higher CO2 has been because of increased solar heat, based on solar activity cycles and how close we are. Hotter = more plants, more plants = more carbon in the air as they decompose. You 'scientists' have decided that the cart is pushing the horse.
Life is resilient. It will survive an increse of 12 degrees at the pole and 1 degree at the equator. Extinction is natural. Life has survived asteroid impacts that would have destroyed the human race. The Ice Age caused millions of extinctions, but life survived. Calm down, people. This means we get NEW critters to eat.
KATRINA WAS NOT A PRODUCT OF GLOBAL WARMING. That disaster was product of idiotic planning. Seriously, have you ever tried to keep water out of the lowest point in your yard? It doesn't stay gone very long. Now imagine placing all of your electronics in that low spot and blaming the fact that it was THE WORST PLACE YOUR COULD POSSIBLY PUT THEM on illegal immigrants and bad sci-fi writers, and blame them for the fact that now, you have no TV, and your cell phone contains algae.
Sounds like drunk-idiot logic, doesn't it?
__________________________________
Danica Patrick's good or bad indy-car preformance is billed as the only be-all, end-all indicator of whether or not women can race. When AJ Allmandinger fails to qualify, nobody says, "Maybe men just can't make it in motorsports." They say, "AJ needs a better crew, more money to research, and most of all, give him time." We have one, count em, one, woman racing in indycar. Sometimes, its the person, or the other circumastances, that determines their performance. We need a larger sample size, and I will punch the next newscaster that says Danica's performance is an indicator of all women. Face or gut, buddy? Here, I'll even take off my rings, just to be nice.
One the same token, this is the first time that a woman has had a serious bid for the U.S. presidency. But when she doesn't get nominated, or somehow she IS nominated and loses the general election, let me tell you, it is because she is a calculating, double-talking politician, and we know it. I don't care if you're God incarnate, if you act like she has, I'm not voting for you.
(Alice Cooper for president)
Don't treat Hillary Clinton's performance as an indicator of whether women can get elected, treat it as an indicator of whether THAT woman can get elected. I say no, she can't.
Same with Barack Obama. He scares me. He scares me on a deep level, because he has such a following of impressionable, outspoken sheep. Really, that's what most of the young generation is, sheep. Obama's a great speaker. So was Hitler. So was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They all have different adgendas. If JFK and Barack Obama somehow, with some kind of time-space anomaly, could switch bodies, it is likely that JFK-body/Obama-brain would not have won in 1960, and that Obama-body/JFK-brain would be nominated and elected this year. It's not just about someone's demographics, it's also about their beliefs. And it's about what they're going to do once they have power.
Maybe Obama honestly thinks he can be America's messiah. Whatever. Maybe he'd do precisely what I want him to do. Maybe he'd mean well and accidentally screw up our country more. He's naive. He also isn't specific. Please, anyone, tell me what SPECIFIC changes he'll give us, and how. Maybe he'd be shot before May. I don't know. But there are two many unkowns, and I'd rather have the devil I know than the devil I don't.
Which brings me to John McCain. The straight-talk-express is anything but, but the well-oiled neocon propaganda machine is predictable. Fox News has the most comprehensive news coverage because they try to preemp anyone else getting ahold of the story, and they put out the party line about whatever happened. By knowing what ACTUALLY happened and how they're trying to sell it (video and pictures vs. judgements, descriptions, and absolutes), one can tell what they're trying to cover up and why.
The propaganda machine is such that we can say with relative certainty what we'll get with a McCain presidency. Even if it's disturbing, curtails our freedoms more (and makes us WANT it; as the people did in Fahrenheit 451), and gives the appreance of improving our position while actually employing shortsighted policies to undermine it, we know what we'll get.
I don't believe any of the candidates will do the right thing for this country, and the more news bather I hear about it, the more I want to go postal. But the solution is to turn the TV off, tape all of the broadcasts for posterity, and just chill. Seriously, people, just chill. Local politics are much more important, and that's where democracy really works. one out of 300 million is not much, especially when your vote doens't actually count for much, but one out of 3 million is something. One out of 1 million even better. Local politics have low turnouts anyway. Improve your own communities, cities, and states, people.
_______________________
Let's talk about that buzzword of the day: terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate. Activism is the use of peace OR violence to affect and inspire change. Psychological terrorism is the continued repetition of the concept that we are ALWAYS in extreme danger from our enemy du jour. The man in the the cloak with the talisman can keep you safe.
Now let's distinguish violent activism and terrorism from another form of violence: the snap-and-shoot-up-a-mall-or-build-a-tank-and-rampage-through-a-small-Colorado-town. That has no adgenda but revenge. It is criminal, but not terrorism. School shootings are not terrorism-- they are terrible, but not terrorism.
Terrorism is raining napalm on people who may or may not be enemy combatants (but probably aren't.. or weren't until you napalmed them) in order to clear jungle and, primarily, instill fear and terror in those who want to fight you.
Terrorism is "shocking and awing" the enemy into blind submission. Terrorism is a point of view. Terrorism is training and arming people who hate the people they're suppost to keep peacful.
"Death solves all problems: No man, no problem." -- Joseph Stalin.
Terrorism is telling people that in order to keep them safe, one must search for and invent enemies among them.
Terrorism is what the government is doing right now.
Arrest them.
_________________________
Ethanol. Is tha tnot the most idiotic fuel you've ver heard of? Ask any distiller: You don't get that much ethanol from a given volume of corn. Even if we use OUR ENTIRE FOOD CROP to make fuel, we'll still need oil, and then we'll need foriegn food, too, which means we'd be subject to whatever country sold it. Think about that.
Methanol can be fermented out of and distilled from wood, which is why it's called wood alcohol. That's what Indy cars run on. Pikes Peak competitors like it, too. Per gallon, it has less energy than gas, but by distilling things that don't need oil-based fertilizers and would otherwise have been left to rot, we really would be getting a net energy GAIN from it. But corn's more glamorous than sawdust.
________________________
Isn't nuclear just stupid? It has a lower accident rate than coal, but when you have a coal accident, it doens't pollute rivers, kill thousands, and render an area uninhabitable. Accidents can, will, and HAVE happened. Plus, it's not zero-emmissions: we need to store all that radioactive poison somewhere. For longer than civilization has even esisted so far.
We'll eventually run out of uranium, too. It's just like oil: a finite naural resource. Dumbass.
And get this: now they want to ship all that spent fuel by highway and train THROUGH EVERY MAJOR CITY IN THE U.S. in order to stuff it in a Nevada mounatin and contaminate their drinking water. No more hanging out at the railyard. It starts in 2010. Allegedly. The containers are supposed to be unmarked. That semi in traffic that's tailgating you might be darrying enough poison to contaminate the s=whole city.
I know a guy that literally lives spitting distance from the train tracks. Think about that, nuclear waste going by right outside your house. Is that really safe?
I love eating at Giuseppe's Old Depot Restaurant in Colroado Springs. Best pizza in the whole state. I'm not sure I would ever be comfortable eating at the train depot with at least three trains going by during the meal, just feet away, some of which may be carrying unmarked nuclear waste.
Whoever decided this was a good idea, c'mere. I'll put my rings back on for you. Face or gut?
First of all, I would like to ask all three presidential candidates, as well as all of the news media, what the fuck? Seriously, I've been asking for clarification, telling you to shut up, or explaining why I don't even care about whatever you're freaking out about, but no matter how loud I talk to the TV, all ya'll don't listen. I know I haven't been the only one shouting at my TV during some of these televised events. On behalf of all of us, who do you think you are, and where do you get off telling us what to think?
Global warming: not a lie, but definitely bad science. In the past, higher CO2 has been because of increased solar heat, based on solar activity cycles and how close we are. Hotter = more plants, more plants = more carbon in the air as they decompose. You 'scientists' have decided that the cart is pushing the horse.
Life is resilient. It will survive an increse of 12 degrees at the pole and 1 degree at the equator. Extinction is natural. Life has survived asteroid impacts that would have destroyed the human race. The Ice Age caused millions of extinctions, but life survived. Calm down, people. This means we get NEW critters to eat.
KATRINA WAS NOT A PRODUCT OF GLOBAL WARMING. That disaster was product of idiotic planning. Seriously, have you ever tried to keep water out of the lowest point in your yard? It doesn't stay gone very long. Now imagine placing all of your electronics in that low spot and blaming the fact that it was THE WORST PLACE YOUR COULD POSSIBLY PUT THEM on illegal immigrants and bad sci-fi writers, and blame them for the fact that now, you have no TV, and your cell phone contains algae.
Sounds like drunk-idiot logic, doesn't it?
__________________________________
Danica Patrick's good or bad indy-car preformance is billed as the only be-all, end-all indicator of whether or not women can race. When AJ Allmandinger fails to qualify, nobody says, "Maybe men just can't make it in motorsports." They say, "AJ needs a better crew, more money to research, and most of all, give him time." We have one, count em, one, woman racing in indycar. Sometimes, its the person, or the other circumastances, that determines their performance. We need a larger sample size, and I will punch the next newscaster that says Danica's performance is an indicator of all women. Face or gut, buddy? Here, I'll even take off my rings, just to be nice.
One the same token, this is the first time that a woman has had a serious bid for the U.S. presidency. But when she doesn't get nominated, or somehow she IS nominated and loses the general election, let me tell you, it is because she is a calculating, double-talking politician, and we know it. I don't care if you're God incarnate, if you act like she has, I'm not voting for you.
(Alice Cooper for president)
Don't treat Hillary Clinton's performance as an indicator of whether women can get elected, treat it as an indicator of whether THAT woman can get elected. I say no, she can't.
Same with Barack Obama. He scares me. He scares me on a deep level, because he has such a following of impressionable, outspoken sheep. Really, that's what most of the young generation is, sheep. Obama's a great speaker. So was Hitler. So was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They all have different adgendas. If JFK and Barack Obama somehow, with some kind of time-space anomaly, could switch bodies, it is likely that JFK-body/Obama-brain would not have won in 1960, and that Obama-body/JFK-brain would be nominated and elected this year. It's not just about someone's demographics, it's also about their beliefs. And it's about what they're going to do once they have power.
Maybe Obama honestly thinks he can be America's messiah. Whatever. Maybe he'd do precisely what I want him to do. Maybe he'd mean well and accidentally screw up our country more. He's naive. He also isn't specific. Please, anyone, tell me what SPECIFIC changes he'll give us, and how. Maybe he'd be shot before May. I don't know. But there are two many unkowns, and I'd rather have the devil I know than the devil I don't.
Which brings me to John McCain. The straight-talk-express is anything but, but the well-oiled neocon propaganda machine is predictable. Fox News has the most comprehensive news coverage because they try to preemp anyone else getting ahold of the story, and they put out the party line about whatever happened. By knowing what ACTUALLY happened and how they're trying to sell it (video and pictures vs. judgements, descriptions, and absolutes), one can tell what they're trying to cover up and why.
The propaganda machine is such that we can say with relative certainty what we'll get with a McCain presidency. Even if it's disturbing, curtails our freedoms more (and makes us WANT it; as the people did in Fahrenheit 451), and gives the appreance of improving our position while actually employing shortsighted policies to undermine it, we know what we'll get.
I don't believe any of the candidates will do the right thing for this country, and the more news bather I hear about it, the more I want to go postal. But the solution is to turn the TV off, tape all of the broadcasts for posterity, and just chill. Seriously, people, just chill. Local politics are much more important, and that's where democracy really works. one out of 300 million is not much, especially when your vote doens't actually count for much, but one out of 3 million is something. One out of 1 million even better. Local politics have low turnouts anyway. Improve your own communities, cities, and states, people.
_______________________
Let's talk about that buzzword of the day: terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate. Activism is the use of peace OR violence to affect and inspire change. Psychological terrorism is the continued repetition of the concept that we are ALWAYS in extreme danger from our enemy du jour. The man in the the cloak with the talisman can keep you safe.
Now let's distinguish violent activism and terrorism from another form of violence: the snap-and-shoot-up-a-mall-or-build-a-tank-and-rampage-through-a-small-Colorado-town. That has no adgenda but revenge. It is criminal, but not terrorism. School shootings are not terrorism-- they are terrible, but not terrorism.
Terrorism is raining napalm on people who may or may not be enemy combatants (but probably aren't.. or weren't until you napalmed them) in order to clear jungle and, primarily, instill fear and terror in those who want to fight you.
Terrorism is "shocking and awing" the enemy into blind submission. Terrorism is a point of view. Terrorism is training and arming people who hate the people they're suppost to keep peacful.
"Death solves all problems: No man, no problem." -- Joseph Stalin.
Terrorism is telling people that in order to keep them safe, one must search for and invent enemies among them.
Terrorism is what the government is doing right now.
Arrest them.
_________________________
Ethanol. Is tha tnot the most idiotic fuel you've ver heard of? Ask any distiller: You don't get that much ethanol from a given volume of corn. Even if we use OUR ENTIRE FOOD CROP to make fuel, we'll still need oil, and then we'll need foriegn food, too, which means we'd be subject to whatever country sold it. Think about that.
Methanol can be fermented out of and distilled from wood, which is why it's called wood alcohol. That's what Indy cars run on. Pikes Peak competitors like it, too. Per gallon, it has less energy than gas, but by distilling things that don't need oil-based fertilizers and would otherwise have been left to rot, we really would be getting a net energy GAIN from it. But corn's more glamorous than sawdust.
________________________
Isn't nuclear just stupid? It has a lower accident rate than coal, but when you have a coal accident, it doens't pollute rivers, kill thousands, and render an area uninhabitable. Accidents can, will, and HAVE happened. Plus, it's not zero-emmissions: we need to store all that radioactive poison somewhere. For longer than civilization has even esisted so far.
We'll eventually run out of uranium, too. It's just like oil: a finite naural resource. Dumbass.
And get this: now they want to ship all that spent fuel by highway and train THROUGH EVERY MAJOR CITY IN THE U.S. in order to stuff it in a Nevada mounatin and contaminate their drinking water. No more hanging out at the railyard. It starts in 2010. Allegedly. The containers are supposed to be unmarked. That semi in traffic that's tailgating you might be darrying enough poison to contaminate the s=whole city.
I know a guy that literally lives spitting distance from the train tracks. Think about that, nuclear waste going by right outside your house. Is that really safe?
I love eating at Giuseppe's Old Depot Restaurant in Colroado Springs. Best pizza in the whole state. I'm not sure I would ever be comfortable eating at the train depot with at least three trains going by during the meal, just feet away, some of which may be carrying unmarked nuclear waste.
Whoever decided this was a good idea, c'mere. I'll put my rings back on for you. Face or gut?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
