tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54951832024-03-14T00:02:18.259-05:00my weekly crimeElliot's take on politics, paleo dieting, atheism, computer geekery, and climate skepticismElliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01496647173478978290noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-80200338423735932342011-04-29T11:09:00.000-05:002011-04-29T11:09:29.384-05:00MovedMoved to <a href="http://myweeklycrime.wordpress.com">http://myweeklycrime.wordpress.com</a> .Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-3108966033450926542011-03-15T10:26:00.003-05:002011-03-15T10:41:10.288-05:00Japan<p>My earliest memories are from the time my family lived in USAF housing in a suburb of Tokyo (Chofu/Fuchu). Before moving to Tokyo, we were in Okinawa, where my dad was part of the team to help oversee transfer to the Japanese government. He was very impressed with how prepared their people were for every meeting. My parents had great praise for the hard working professionalism and civilized nature of the Japanese. We kids loved watching "Utala Man" cartoons and going to the Yomiyuri Land amusement park.</p><p>Billy Beck has <a href="http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P5090"> expressed similar praise</a> over the years, having worked there a number of times.</p><p>It's heartbreaking to see the devastation, but important to realize that <a href="http://www.japantrends.com/life-continues-in-tokyo/">life goes on</a> in most of Japan and they're quite civilized <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100079703/why-is-there-no-looting-in-japa"n/>not to engage in looting</a>.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-655823825453042092011-01-21T16:37:00.002-06:002011-01-21T18:46:18.998-06:00I am TJIC<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/we-are-tjic.html"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 107px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/TToK5pSUR_I/AAAAAAAAAHI/K7L_5PmM6YE/s200/Spartacus.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5564772275021170674" /></a><br />
I criticized Corcoran on the comment section of his article on the day of the shooting. However, on Jan 12, he posted a "flow chart" (his website is down, but you can see it on the RSS feed):
<blockquote><b>TJIC:</b> <i>Next question: do you think that a schizophrenic individual shooting up a politician, a judge, and a dozen civilians in Arizon served any purpose at all, or advanced civil rights in any way?
If you answer “yes”, stop here. Your conception of “useful” differs radically from TJIC’s.
Step 6: Congratulations – you agree with TJIC that the Arizona shooting was a tragedy, of which no good will come.
Next question: do you think that an armed revolution, including assassinations, is morally legitimate in the US today?
If you answer “Yes”, stop here.
If you answer “No”, congratulations, you agree with TJIC. </i></blockquote>
If he had said that on the day of the shooting, I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment.
<blockquote><b><a href=http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/21/questions-for-alex-seitz-wald-and-thinkprogress>Radley Balko</a>:</b> "<i>But he isn’t remotely libertarian, an ideology where the non-initiation of force is a pretty fundamental principle."</i></blockquote>
As I've argued here and elsewhere, I think the most effective action at this point is time is massive, non-violent civil disobedience. Not because I think that violence against particular individuals in government is an aggressive initiation of force—as has been documented on this website and elsewhere, many in the government have been employing the use of force against people who have done nothing to hurt anyone else—but because (1) such an act will be widely <i>perceived</i> as an initiation of force, ignoring what the government has done to people, and (2) the net result will be a pointless waste, accomplishing nothing positive.
But at some point, if the government gets sufficiently awful and if peaceful attempts fail, I will change my mind about engaging in violence, as was done in the American Revolution, so long as attacks don't involve the killing of innocents. I hope like crazy that we never get to that point in my lifetime.
With that in mind: <a href=http://myweeklycrime.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-am-tjic.html>I am TJIC</a>.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-42349838748691899612011-01-08T18:28:00.007-06:002011-01-17T08:53:08.010-06:00Political ViolenceIn response to the ghouls who are trying to exploit the mass murder at the political gathering in AZ, blaming the politicians and pundits for the tone of their rhetoric being too combative:
<blockquote>"<i>Yes, the quality of political debate is abysmally bad. That is a direct result of how the exercise of political power has more intensely affected the lives of citizens. Voters recognize how all the government programs, laws, regulations, taxes, etc. are dominating their lives and threatening their futures more and more each day, so they are understandably alarmed and getting more desperate to stop the “other side” from taking advantage of them.<br />
<br />
"All of this is the predictable result of putting moral questions up to a vote, of rulers making election contests into mock battles, pitting one “side” against another. (Warren mentions the “Coke vs. Pepsi” mentality, which is spot on.)<br />
<br />
"Around the 2010 election, I read somewhere [<b>added</b>: <a href="http://www.improvedclinch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/tick_tick_boom/">here</a> via <a href="http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P5052">Beck</a>] that an election is nothing more than two or more armies getting dressed up, marching to the battle field, then counting which side has the most soldiers and awarding the spoils of victory to that side without actually drawing blood. And, as Billy Beck has pointed out <a href="http://myweeklycrime.blogspot.com/2010/04/bill-clinton-paraphrases-billy-beck.html">for many years</a>: “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”<br />
<br />
"My solution? Stop voting. Stop giving your permission to politicians to wield power over your neighbors. Work with your neighbors to solve problems via reason and persuasion, instead of resorting to force. Government, by definition, is the use of force.</i>"</blockquote>
(My comment <a href=http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/01/congresswoman-shot.html#comment-41290>here</a> and <a href=http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/08/horrible-2/comment-page-1/#comment-518687>here</a>.)Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-90373970036233662412010-11-02T16:22:00.002-05:002010-11-02T16:33:31.303-05:00Election 2010 Prediction<p>I predict that the politicians who win the elections tonight will all violate their promises. They will exploit their power to give one group special privileges at the expense of all of our individual rights. It looks quite a bit like 1994 and we all saw how the "Contract With America" turned out to be mostly useless.</p><p>Projecting forward, I think Obama's people are going to exploit the image of Republicans as being obstructionists to try to boost his ratings for 2012. And, there's a good chance the GOP will offer up yet another pathetic candidate who will sap the enthusiasm of voters who would have voted against Obama.</p><p>Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to screw up any advantages they have at a given point in time.</p><p>But that's just one reason I have no intention of setting foot inside a polling station again. <a href="http://freetheanimal.com/2010/11/hows-zookeeper-selection-day-going.html">Richard Nikoley</a> and <a href="http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/?p=1641">Mike Soja</a> offer some roundups of arguments against voting.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-81041341376847025172010-10-20T12:49:00.002-05:002010-10-20T13:02:53.562-05:00Anita Hill Turns Voicemail Over to FBI<blockquote>"<i>Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.</i>"</blockquote><p>Apparently, Anita Hill <a target="_new" href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/scotus.thomas.hill/index.html?hpt=T2">turned that message over</a> to the campus DPS, who forwarded it to the FBI.</p><p>Why?</p><p>I don't know if Anita Hill lied to the Judiciary Committee two decades ago, but bringing her forward to make a public spectacle was inappropriate. They had interviewed her, found no real evidence, and should have dropped it at that, regardless of Nina Totenberg. And, while I don't agree with most of the Democrats' political objections to Clarence Thomas, I have other objections to many of his opinions, particularly the law-and-order cases when he helps to winnow away individual rights.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-85834969940187872602010-10-13T13:26:00.005-05:002010-10-13T13:48:04.001-05:00Bairo Ávalos<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/TLX6BEI7ebI/AAAAAAAAAG8/oFqJr68deuk/s1600/c02.chile.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 98px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/TLX6BEI7ebI/AAAAAAAAAG8/oFqJr68deuk/s200/c02.chile.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5527599013865159090" /></a>
<p>Seven-year-old son of the first rescued miner, Florencio Ávalos, brought tears to my eyes. It was a beautiful thing to see that boy's overwhelming emotions. (Picture from CNN.)</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-48400900327715205152010-09-24T13:40:00.004-05:002010-10-03T18:49:19.884-05:00Beck on Beck<p>Billy Beck makes some <a href="http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P5015">observations about Glenn Beck</a>, with which I tend to agree. <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/03/26/well/comment-page-1/#comment-388982">I</a> <a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/02/my-interview-with-glenn-beck.html#comment-33045">don't</a> <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/09/20/morning-links-378/comment-page-2/#comment-418170">get</a> the ubiquitous hostility and charges of craziness directed at him. His emphasis on faith at the Lincoln Memorial rally pretty much proved most of the pre-event hysteria dead wrong. It wasn't a "right-wing" political festival. Instead, it was a boring gathering of milquetoast religious speeches, something which isn't going to do any good to further the individual rights of Americans.</p><p>I've never listened to or watched Savage or Levin. I can't really argue too much about Billy's opinion of Hannity. For one thing, he tells people who phone him "great Americans" without knowing anything about them, other than the fact that they call him a "great American". But he's still smarter than Bill O'Reilly or any of the chumps at MSNBC. (Yeah, I know, that's not saying much.)</p><p>I was, however, surprised to see faint praise for Rush Limbaugh. I don't agree, because I don't think you can put your finger on "the bounds of his logic" because he so often makes ridiculously specious arguments with no logic. When Limbaugh is on the right side of an issue, or making a valid point about freedom and individualism, most of the time he's backing into it by accident, or at the very least, unable to universally apply such principles across party boundaries.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-79320554146930615062010-09-24T13:25:00.006-05:002010-09-24T13:36:55.255-05:00Stephen Colbert Testifies Before Congress<p>What Congress Critter thought <a href="http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1009/reporters_not_amused_by_colbert.html">this</a> would be a good idea? I'm all for mocking politicians and see no reason to show them respect. They are, after all, whores and thieves on the scale of trillions of dollars. But those people seem to think highly of themselves and the "dignity" of their profession, so what moron figured bringing Colbert before their committee made any sense?</p><p>Stephen Colbert is very quick-witted and can be very funny at times. But his always-on "Opposite Day" shtick gets tedious after awhile. And, his character is hard-wired to lampoon Republicans/"conservatives"— some of them make it so easy—but any good satirist ought to see just as many, if not more, targets among the Democrats/"liberals".</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-36276055375203488282010-09-20T12:05:00.005-05:002010-09-20T13:00:57.545-05:00Tea Party<p>When Rick Santelli, from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, stated on CNBC (Feb 19, 2009) that traders ought to engage in a "tea party" to protest the insanely irresponsible <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners_Affordability_and_Stability_Plan">mortgage bailout</a>, which was rewarding poor economic decisions at the expense of everyone else, I was a bit moved. At least some people on the national scene were getting just how reckless the Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine was and the level to which Americans ought to be resisting. To be fair, Bush signed <a href="http://myweeklycrime.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-made-this-picture-just-after-bush.html">TARP</a> with a few Republican supporters, including McCain, so the Democrats were only accelerating the large-scale looting of the efforts of taxpayers started a few months before. And, while TARP was unprecedented in its scope and scale, it was the logical progression from all of the travesties mainly tracing back to FDR's authoritarian meddling in the economy in response to the Great Depression.</p>
<p>All of the political horrors being splashed across the news from the start of the new administration convinced me that in order to dissuade the government from trashing the free market with more of these legislative abominations, it was going to take the kind of determination and courage shown by the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty>Sons of Liberty</a>, who carried out the Boston Tea Party. Widespread <u>non-violent</u> civil disobedience could have warned the politicians away from going as far as they did, but that sort of movement never materialized. People were content to hold rallies and rely on elections, rather than demonstrating their resolve to shut down the machine of government through non-compliance.</p>
<p>When I saw news footage of tea party rallies in the days which followed, I quickly realized from the placards and t-shirts being shown that a good number of these people were rather ignorant, or at least hopelessly naïve. They had all sorts of different agendas, most of which were recycled Republican/"conservative" positions, rather than more principled advocacy of individual rights and across-the-board opposition to government abuse of power. Many were able to enumerate the misdeeds of the Democrats, but few had the insight to recognize that the vast majority of the GOP politicians were similarly unethical, but just in slightly different ways. At best, the tea party movement has targeted RINOs. Unfortunately, it hasn't done anything to weed out the more irrationally religious candidates and pundits, or the law-and-order types.</p>
<p>When the immigration stupidity in Arizona became associated with a large number of self-proclaimed tea partiers, I saw no reason to hope that this "movement" was going to accomplish anything for liberty, but could turn out to be a net loss—if for no other reason than people who could have taken a stand for individualism against the Democrats were going to be drowned out in the debate. The media focuses on the more vocal, more sensational, oversimplifying the issues and pigeonholing people. And, when political opportunists like Sarah Palin and Mark Williams hoisted the tea party banner for their own agenda, I realized that the people who were sincerely interested in liberty and reining in government on principle were going to lose the opportunity to debate the important moral questions. Instead, people are distracted by Cordoba House ("Ground Zero Mosque") and other irrelevancies.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Democrat supporters have happily cherry picked the most irrational, ignorant self-proclaimed tea partiers as being representative of the movement, in addition to playing the race card because a few idiots (or perhaps agents provocateur) showed up at rallies with signs which were racist (or, at least, which could be portrayed as racist). But the race thing started before the tea party became hot, as one liar after another cynically accusing anyone who opposed Obama's agenda of only doing so because he was black, and not on the principles of freedom.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-69709570132103601972010-07-24T01:31:00.002-05:002010-07-24T01:37:07.168-05:00SaltAngelina Jolie as a female Jason Bourne makes this an edge-of-your-seat thrill ride. I could pick a few nits on the plot, but I was sufficiently entertained to forgive them.
Go see it.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-90600332382443510612010-07-12T12:53:00.005-05:002010-07-12T15:26:09.290-05:00Agnostic Manifesto Mess<div class="entry-body"><div><div class="item-body"><div><p>Balko <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/06/29/late-afternoon-links-2/">puts himself</a> somewhere around <span class="byline">Ron Rosenbaum's position in his ridiculous <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/">Agnostic Manifesto</a>. The comment sections both of those links are rife with excellent refutations of Rosenbaum's specious arguments. I cite one of my contributions below. The comments are so plentiful, I wonder if Rosenbaum has had the opportunity to read them all, or enough to see the errors he made. I would also hope that Radley saw enough to rethink his endorsement, so that in the future he could find (or make) better justifications for calling himself an agnostic.</span></p><p><span class="byline">I know Radley Balko has sneered at "<a href="http://myweeklycrime.blogspot.com/2009/04/smug-atheists-getting-de-baptised.html">smug atheists</a>" in the past, which reminds me of one of my criticisms of atheism, before I realized that perception was wrong. For one, contrast the attitudes of the faithful who think they're going to heaven and all the rest of us infidels are going to burn in hell. No atheist I know could ever come close to that level of smugness, which when carried to the extreme leads to hatred, cruelty, and murder. You'll not find anything like that from an atheist qua atheist. Sure, there are plenty of people who are assholes about their disdain for religion, as with any group of people. To me, the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism">New Atheists</a>" display an earnest, active resolution to enlighten people who may be ignorant about atheism (believing some of the nonsense Rosenbaum writes, for example), both as a way to protect non-believers from the ages-old bigotry against them, and as a way to redirect the energies of people away from the frivolities of imaginary things.</span></p><p><span class="byline">Smug? Consider the scientists, engineers, or musicians who put time and energy into studying a particular problem, trying to invent something good, or even just trying to understand what others have done before them. Confidence, satisfaction, and even joy are quite reasonable when things which don't make sense (or are not very good) are pushed off the table. But oftentimes, as was my own personal case, an outsider who sees this attitude mistakes it as an annoying smugness. But I suspect most of that misperception is driven by ego—not wanting people we may not like (for whatever reason) to be right or wise or smart.</span></p><p><span class="byline">Sometimes, one must put aside ego and work to be as honest and rational as possible. Read Hitchens or Dawkins, be open-minded, and don't fall for Rosenbaum's straw man model of atheism. If you're a self-described agnostic, you may realize you misunderstood the atheist arguments, and thus didn't have an accurate idea of what it means to be an atheist (which, of course, is a broad category which includes many variations). By all means, avoid becoming a catatonic skeptic, because that isn't wisdom. It's avoidance.</span></p><p><span class="byline">Here's my first comment (<a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/06/29/late-afternoon-links-2/#comment-403247">#28</a>) at Balko's place:
</span></p><blockquote><i><p>Despite the common misconception, Richard Dawkins and other atheists do not have an absolute, 100% disbelief. In The God Delusion, Dawkins has a </i>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability">Spectrum of theistic probability</a>] <i>scale from absolute belief to absolute disbelief, with agnostics in the middle. He puts himself close to, but not actually at, 100% disbelief. The common analogies are comparing a rational consideration of the possibility of a deity to the rational consideration of the existence of a teapot in orbit between Mars and Earth, or the existence of fairies in the bottom of the garden. Strictly speaking, I can’t rule out the teapot or the fairies, because tomorrow someone could actually provide proof. But I feel quite safe in disregarding such a “possibility” as too trivial to concern myself, like an infinite number of other similarly trivial “possibilities”.</i></p><i> </i><p><i>That’s not agnosticism, either.</i></p><i> </i><p><i>I identified as an agnostic for about 15 years. I considered atheists to be smug and often hostile to good people of faith. But I realize now that what tethered me to the theist side of the fence was residual Christian fear and guilt, as well as a kind of desperate hope that there was some kind of higher power. I even described myself as an agnostic leaning towards Deism.</i></p><i> </i><p><i>I cut the tether</i> [see <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/06/29/late-afternoon-links-2/#comment-403440">#75</a> for more details]<i> when I read someone point out how cruel it is to convince a child that their beloved grandfather would be burning forever in fire because he wasn’t baptized. All of the seemingly “well-meaning” traditional religions are poisoned with such hideous fundamental ideas, because it is necessary to inculcate people with fear and/or hate in order to keep them from “straying”, i.e., using their rational mind and dismissing religious tales as ridiculous fantasy–not to mention identifying the truly horrible aspects and applications. Leaders can only control the minds of religious followers so long as they use such despicable ploys. Even the Eastern and New Age religions are often poisoned with a worship of death over life. (Without such poison, they’re just silly fluff, mere fads.)</i></p><i> </i><p><i>So, once I freed myself of that irrational anchor, I decided that, while I can respect people of faith who treat others respectfully and appreciate how much their beliefs mean to them, I should never again respect their actual beliefs. I don’t include the non-supernatural, rational beliefs like the 'Golden Rule' and [rules like] don’t commit murder. But I give no special exceptions for brises, religious education, slave garb for women, etc.. No, it’s not for me to decide how other people raise their children or treat their wives, but I also don’t have any reason to overlook cruelty and deception just because it falls inside some conceptual fence of “faith” (a wholly unvirtuous human quality).</i></p><i> </i><p><i>I regret wasting my time on the agnostic fence and I would highly recommend that anyone who now considers him/herself an agnostic to critically question why. Read god is Not Great (Hitchens) and The God Delusion (Dawkins) if you haven’t already, rather than relying on hearsay about these people. I have a couple bones to pick with both, such as Dawkins’ utilitarian approach to morality and Hitchens’ occasional broad brush condemnations. But they do make excellent arguments against theism and agnosticism.</i></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-10204795721091325542010-05-13T11:31:00.003-05:002010-05-13T11:38:45.859-05:00Jupiter Loses Stripe<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S-wqqZEEjyI/AAAAAAAAAGk/sVEJZtBuCEI/s1600/JupiterLost.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 138px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S-wqqZEEjyI/AAAAAAAAAGk/sVEJZtBuCEI/s200/JupiterLost.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5470794555119144738" border="0" /></a>
<p>From <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1277734/Jupiter-loses-stripes-scientists-idea-why.html">The Daily Mail:</a></p><blockquote><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1277734/Jupiter-loses-stripes-scientists-idea-why.html"><i><p>"Jupiter has lost one of its iconic red stripes and scientists are baffled as to why.</p><p>"The largest planet in our solar system is usually dominated by two dark bands in its atmosphere, with one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere.</p><p>"However, the most recent images taken by amateur astronomers have revealed the lower stripe known as the Southern Equatorial Belt has disappeared leaving the southern half of the planet looking unusually bare.</p><p>"The band was present in at the end of last year before Jupiter ducked behind the Sun on its orbit. However, when it emerged three months later the belt had disappeared."</p></i></a></blockquote><p>How long before some scientist blames global warming?</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-1762242906161510312010-05-12T13:17:00.005-05:002010-05-12T16:01:55.168-05:00Taser<p>In response to <a href="http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/theres-man-on-radio.html">an article</a> at <i>View From The Porch</i> in which Tam made an offhand comparison between Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh, with which I generally agree, I <a href="http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/theres-man-on-radio.html?showComment=1273604241998#c4994152818435913376">noted</a> some of Boortz's moral failings:</p><blockquote><i>"I thought Boortz was a libertarian-leaning conservative.<br /><br />That was before I <a href="http://myweeklycrime.blogspot.com/2010/03/neal-boortz-advises-caller-how-to.html" rel="nofollow">heard Boortz</a> advise a caller how to snitch to the IRS. Also, recently he expressed glee that the <a href="http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/05/baseball-fan-tasered.html">idiot cop used a taser</a> on a non-violent streaker at a ball game. </i>[Boortz's approval was done on-air but not mentioned in the preceding linked article.]<i> The more I listen to Boortz, the more examples of anti-freedom ideas leak out from his microphone.<br /><br />His "libertarian" principles run very shallow. Sure, he might be better than Rush in many ways, but I think it's worse to have someone who purportedly represents the libertarian position who undermines real application of the principles of freedom."</i></blockquote><p>In a <a href="http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/theres-man-on-radio.html?showComment=1273615156213#c8442298050956426472">followup comment</a>, "Divemedic" dissented:</p><blockquote><i>"To Elliot: I don't have a problem with tasing the ball game streaker, even from a libertarian standpoint. Not only was he resisting arrest AND violating the property rights of the stadium owner and ball club, but he was violating the rights of the thousands of fans who paid to watch a ball game, not an idiot streaker. <br /><br />IMO, this is no different than the "Don't tase me, bro" guy- why should one person who is disrupting the event and refusing to leave when instructed be given greater weight than the thousands of others there? The easy way to not get tased is to 1) not trespass, 2) leave when instructed, 3) not resist when being arrested for failing at #1 and #2."</i></blockquote><p>To which I <a href="http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/theres-man-on-radio.html?showComment=1273682230903#c2699961319965618750">replied</a>:</p><blockquote><i>"Divemedic, when the taser was introduced to law enforcement, authorities claimed that it was to be used as a "non-lethal" alternative to using a gun or other more lethal force.<br /><br />By that reasoning, the idiot cop could have been justified in shooting the streaker with a gun.<br /><br />Please note that the taser is not actually non-lethal. In rare cases, people do die. If LEOs honestly only used tasers in cases where guns would be justified, one could argue that even a small risk of death is preferable to being shot.<br /><br />But the reality is that LEOs routinely use tasers in <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2009/08/01/taser-nation/" rel="nofollow">an inappropriate fashion</a>, even on old people, disabled people, and children. In many situations, they aren't reasonably justified in doing this. </i>[<b>Added:</b> Nikoley gives <a href="http://freetheanimal.com/2007/09/torture-pigs.html">an example</a> of a video showing a cop's obviously sadistic pleasure in using a taser. His mom is right.]<i> LEOs are supposed to be able to handle people in a professional manner, including using reason and, if necessary, physically restraining a smaller, weaker person without resorting to sadistic methods. And, if they're afraid for their safety, <i>they shouldn't have become a cop in the first place</i>. Fire the <b>cowards</b> who can't handle such situations.<br /><br />The problem is that LEOs have become unaccountable, paramilitary automatons. They know that people like you will defend their inappropriate use of force ("don't tase me bro") and that they can <a href="http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100506/BREAKING/100509857/2416/NEWS?Title=Report-Deputy-cleared-in-fatal-shooting-of-Tyler-Spann" rel="nofollow">do what they want</a>.<br /><br />I'm disgusted that you, or anyone else, could look at either situation and decide that "law and order" must be maintained, that not disrupting other people's "enjoyment" is of such a paramount importance that thuggish violence ought to be used to expedite the resolution.<br /><br />This is the mindset that has led to SWAT teams swarming into the homes of non-violent suspects, risking the lives of innocent bystanders (like children), <a href="http://myweeklycrime.blogspot.com/2010/05/dog-murders-on-film.html" rel="nofollow">murdering family pets</a>, and generally escalating a non-violent situation into a very violent one. Despite what apologists might argue, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral/" rel="nofollow">this happens hundreds of times a day</a>.<br /><br />Police are supposed to be professional and display exemplary behavior. They are supposed to be brave and strong, not cowards. They are supposed to use reason and restraint to resolve problems and defuse situations before they get violent, not inject unnecessary violence into them. And, most of all, they ought to be <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/2249592,CST-NWS-bowling08.article" rel="nofollow">held to a higher standard</a> than the rest of us, not given a free pass to do things that would put us in prison for years."</i></blockquote><p>Tam reminded me that my rant (which she incorrectly called "copypasta"—I didn't cut-and-paste, but rather included hyperlinks in my original commentary) was inappropriate in the comment section for that article she wrote. That's her place, so she gets to make the rules. However, if anyone would like to discuss this further, feel free to use the comment section in this article.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-83735202332863163572010-05-06T01:53:00.003-05:002010-05-06T03:01:46.281-05:00and a high chair for my wife<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/04/25/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 281px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S-JoMzG1z-I/AAAAAAAAAGU/Hdj0-joTMi0/s320/DBD042510.jpg" alt="Chris Muir's Day by Day Cartoon" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468047466667823074" border="0" /></a>
<p>Chris Muir sets the bar high for entries in the first annual <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/first-annual-everybody-draw-mo">Everybody Draw Mohammad Day</a>. This follows on the heels of the 2005 Danish newspaper <a href="http://www.jp.dk/">Jyllands-Posten</a> publication (and 2008 reprinting) of <a href="http://www.aina.org/releases/20060201143237.htm">various cartoonists' renderings</a>, which triggered riots by savages in which more than 100 people were killed.</p>
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/giovanni-da-modena/"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S-J1u-j7pRI/AAAAAAAAAGc/sFXSibULmmc/s200/220px-Mohameddemons2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468062347509343506" /></a>
<p>I still think Giovani di Modena's 1415 depiction of Mohammad burning in hell, as part of a fresco about Dante's <i>Inferno</i> takes the cake:</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-44556965620647794112010-05-05T12:57:00.010-05:002010-05-05T15:16:56.690-05:00Dog Murders on Film<p><b>WARNING:</b> The following video involves a police raid in which one, or possibly two, family pets are murdered by cops. The murders occur off camera and the dogs are never visually shown, but the sounds are very disturbing to hear. (via <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri-family/">Balko</a>)</p><object width="360" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RbwSwvUaRqc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RbwSwvUaRqc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="360" height="289"></embed></object><p>This is just plain evil. There is absolutely no justification for this. If you approve of laws which make drugs illegal, please explain to me how shooting pets in a house with children just to keep some people from smoking a plant makes any sense. How is pot more dangerous than a violent, paramilitary raid with guns blazing?</p><p>Mailmen, meter readers, cable/phone technicians all have to deal with dogs. I've never heard of any of them needing to kill a dog. [<b>Update:</b> I forgot to mention what cowardly pussies all these cops who murder dogs are. It happens <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/">all over the country</a>, all the time. (Search for "puppycide".)]</p><p>I don't need to watch any fictional movies about a futuristic dystopia. <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/04/now-appearing-in-oklahoma-arizonas-immigration-law">We are</a> there <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/04/we-know-who-you-are">now</a>.</p><p><b>P.S.:</b> <i>"The entire philosophy behind SWAT-style drug raids is that the death of a mother, a child, or the family pet is an acceptable risk to prevent flushing."</i> — <a href="http://forum.dvdtalk.com/10141586-post8.html">Commenter "Dr Mabuse" in a forum</a>.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-51208354107088445362010-05-05T12:55:00.000-05:002010-05-05T15:30:27.035-05:00Big Brother Tax Threat Commercial in PA<object style="background-image:url(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/8ylAjZOHLZU/hqdefault.jpg)" width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ylAjZOHLZU&hl=en_US&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ylAjZOHLZU&hl=en_US&fs=1" width="360" height="221" allowScriptAccess="never" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object>
<p><a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/04/we-know-who-you-are/">Balko</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/05/creepy-pennsylvania-tax-agency-ad-goes-big-brother/">FNC</a>. They are actually <a href="http://www.pataxpayup.com/portal/server.pt/community/resources___advertising/18999">proud of their work</a>.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-6708065792164577742010-05-05T11:15:00.000-05:002010-05-05T18:45:04.857-05:00American IdolI didn't bother to blog last week's Shania Twain show. I was busy, but I also wasn't enthusiastic about the show, anyway. Shania Twain is a beautiful woman and seems to be a nice person, but I just can't stand her songs. They are trite and the worst combination of pop and country. My interest in country music ended in the 70s: Johnny Cash, Charlie Daniels, Glen Campbell, Mac Davis, the Oakridge Boys, Loretta Lynn, Lynn Anderson. After that, I quit paying attention. Except a few Randy Travis albums I own and a couple songs here or there, I just don't find any country music in the past few decades to be enjoyable, particularly the pop-ish women.
That night, I picked <span style="font-weight: bold;">Siobhan Magnus</span> as the best performance of the night, with the caveat that all of the songs that night were annoying and stupid. To me, her song was just the least awful to hear. I don't think any singer could have made those tunes enjoyable for me. I don't know if Shania Twain fans could have enjoyed the American Idol versions. All the thematic choices of the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Elvis, Shania, and Sinatra this season have pushed contestants into an awkward corner. I don't imagine any of them will ever cut an album with those types of songs, so what is the point?
For whatever reason, people called in more votes for what I believe are clearly inferior singers, particularly <span style="font-weight: bold;">Aaron</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Casey</span>. Perhaps they thought she was safe. Perhaps they thought she was too weird. Perhaps her poor song choices from previous weeks had caught up to her. Whatever the case, I was disappointed that her elimination left <span style="font-weight: bold;">Crystal Bowersox</span> being the only remaining singer whose performances have interested me. Sure, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lee</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Michael</span> have done decent jobs here and there, but I just can't get enthusiastic about them as artists.
Unless one of the men does something fantastic, I can't imagine any excitment in the final showdown this season. It's <span style="font-weight: bold;">Crystal's</span> to lose. If she does lose, it will just make this season even more uninteresting.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-46178115582405142392010-04-23T16:40:00.015-05:002010-04-26T09:46:14.618-05:00South Park Punks the "Revolution Muslim" Punks<span style="font-style: italic;">South Park</span> creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, were the target of threats by a group called "Revolution Muslim." These ridiculously stereotypical angry Muslims produced a video intimating that Parker and Stone would end up murdered, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29">Theo Van Gogh</a>, for depicting Mohammad in a "blasphemous" way. Well, <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=454148">the joke was on</a> the angry Muslims:
<blockquote><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9JmyVGtDOI/AAAAAAAAAFc/_W8ZmBxaGCM/s1600/southparkbear.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 223px; height: 126px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9JmyVGtDOI/AAAAAAAAAFc/_W8ZmBxaGCM/s400/southparkbear.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463542312798588130" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Mohammed appeared on Wednesday night's US episode of the cartoon with his body obscured by a black box, since Muslims consider a physical representation of their prophet</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> to be blasphemous. Last week, the character was believed to be disguised in a bear costume. When that same costume was removed this week, </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Santa Claus</span> appeared.</blockquote>The very idea of blasphemy against any religion is such an obviously <i>human</i> one. There is no god. But if there were a being of such awesome unimaginable power, would it really be necessary for people to protect this god from ridicule? It's not like this alleged creator of the universe would have the emotional constitution of a fragile young child being mocked on the playground for having a goofy haircut. This is supposed to be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity. Few other human attitudes do more to highlight the absurdity of blind faith than throwing a temper tantrum and demanding that everyone else give respect to the irrational belief in imaginary beings.
<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.</span><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span> —<a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Pale_Blue_Dot_.281994.29">Carl Sagan</a>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Pale Blue Dot</span>, 1994</blockquote><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9Ksov5w7MI/AAAAAAAAAFk/u0gtll5Aow0/s1600/South-Park-Episode-201.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 4px 4px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 350px; height: 153px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9Ksov5w7MI/AAAAAAAAAFk/u0gtll5Aow0/s400/South-Park-Episode-201.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463619114007325890" border="0" /></a>The plot of episodes "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_%28South_Park%29">200</a>" and "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_%28South_Park%29">201</a>" are quite convoluted and silly, in true <span style="font-style: italic;">South Park</span> fashion. But as with many episodes, it's a subversive, intentionally offensive morality play. Buddha is depicted snorting cocaine, Jesus admits viewing porn on the internet, but a box covers Mohammed at all times and even the mention of his name by the characters is bleeped in the audio. The closed captions, however, weren't altered. Even more absurd, a "lessons learned" speech at the end of the show, which made no mention of Mohammed, was completely bleeped out (including the closed captions). Apparently, Comedy Central <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Terrorists+launch+attack+free+speech/2946511/story.html">completely caved</a> to what can only be described as terroristic "warnings."
</p><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9K2ao0aZpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/5C8INbZh7-k/s1600/southpark-muhammad.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 182px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9K2ao0aZpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/5C8INbZh7-k/s200/southpark-muhammad.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463629866703939218" border="0" /></a>Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, and years before the murderous riots by angry Muslims, pissed over a few Mohammed cartoons, the episode "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends">Super Best Friends"</a> (July 4, 2001), showed an apparently innocuous cartoon version of Mohammed as part of the plot, but there were no riots, no death threats then.
On April 5, 2006 and April 12, 2006, a two part episode "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_II">Cartoon Wars</a>" had terrified characters throughout the US burying their heads in sand to show Muslims that they had no part in the airing of a picture of Mohammed on the show <span style="font-style: italic;">Family Guy</span> (well, the <span style="font-style: italic;">South Park </span>parody of <span style="font-style: italic;">Family Guy</span>). They built the suspense, first showing an episode within an episode with a black censorship box. The next week, they were supposedly going to show it unedited, but Comedy Central wouldn't air it:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9K1PFxoxkI/AAAAAAAAAFs/AXkv7tYBd-Q/s1600/southparkmo.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 4px; text-align: left; cursor: pointer; width: 182px; height: 140px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9K1PFxoxkI/AAAAAAAAAFs/AXkv7tYBd-Q/s400/southparkmo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463628568806868546" border="0" /></a> vs. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9K1mvR2OJI/AAAAAAAAAF0/DwsXYigEU7g/s1600/SP-s10e04-censor.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 4px; text-align: right; cursor: pointer; width: 182px; height: 140px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z7ExyQ6xRXg/S9K1mvR2OJI/AAAAAAAAAF0/DwsXYigEU7g/s400/SP-s10e04-censor.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463628975084812434" border="0" /></a></p>I still prefer the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd">Douche and Turd</a>" episode, in which Stan decides not to vote for a school election, and is threatend by Puff Daddy to "Vote or Die" (an actual slogan he used in pro-voting commercials). As usual, their over-the-top theme serves to illustrate the stupidity of people feeling obligated to vote in an election, even if they don't like either candidate.</p><p><b>P.S.:</b> <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/04/26/morning-links-339/">Balko</a> links to a story about a <a href="http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170">call to ink pens</a>, for cartoonists everywhere to draw Mohammed on April 20, 2010.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-74729698841862895392010-04-23T13:46:00.002-05:002010-04-23T14:09:31.997-05:00Anthropomorphizing Nature<p>At <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/23/weisman.volcano.iceland.earth/index.html?hpt=C1">CNN</a>, Alan Weisman tries to add a few more squawks to the chorus of Chicken Littles pushing the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) theory. He litters his unsupported hypothesis with the childish view of the entire world being a sentient being which is "striking back at us" for our environmental "sins", closing with the stereotypical alarmist imagery:</p><blockquote>...if we don't pull carbon out of the way we energize our lives soon, a small clump of our not-too-distant surviving descendants may find themselves, as Gaia scientist <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange" target="new">James Lovelock</a> has direly predicted, like the first Icelanders: gathered on some near-barren hunk of rock near one of the still-habitable poles, trying yet anew to eke out a plan for human civilization.</blockquote><p>"Gaia scientist"? What's next, an astrology scientist? How can so many grown men and women go out in public and pretend that a 658-sextillion-ton rock measuring 25,000 miles around has a rational mind? This is Santa Claus and Leprechaun stuff.</p><p>Even more amazing is how these charlatans have managed to <a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/04/happy-lenins-birthday.html">repackage socialism</a> and convince so many people that there is a dire need to do the economic equivalent of carpet bombing modern industry.</p><p>As I <a href="/2009/04/green-is-new-red.html">wrote before</a>, green is the new red.</p><p><a href="http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/04/let-me-get-this.html">What he said.</a></p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-2320831779746876522010-04-23T10:53:00.011-05:002010-04-24T14:19:12.508-05:00Musical Madness<p><a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/04/23/morning-links-338/">Radley Balko</a> links to <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2250793/pagenum/all/">an article</a> at <i>Slate</i> explaining the maddening trade-offs involved in tuning keyboard and fretted instruments. I was blissfully unaware of the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_temperament">musical temperament</a> and just assumed that musical notes were perfectly laid out in simple, integral frequency ratios. Thanks, Balko, for making me feel even stupider about music theory.</p><p>My introduction to playing music was on a trumpet in the sixth grade, which meant I had a very narrow perspective: one note at a time. I could hear when I didn't harmonize with another person's instrument, but that was either a matter of tuning, or a simple result of someone playing the wrong note. Not until high school did the band directors even attempt a cursory sketch of music theory: major, minor, and perfect intervals. Otherwise, it was just rote learning. Play what's on the page.<a href="#FOOTNOTE1"><span style="vertical-align: super; color: rgb(0, 196, 0);font-size:78%;" >*</span></a></p><p>Being a math geek, it always bothered me that the notes on a major scale were not symmetrical, making each letter two semitones apart--the reason there isn't a black key between every white key on a piano. Why not use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexatonic_scale">a hexatonic</a>, or whole tone scale, so an octave involved six notes instead of the seven notes in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_scale">diatonic scale</a>? Put a black key between each white key and adjust accordingly. A C-major scale would no longer be void of accidentals, but wouldn't that force neophyte musicians to grasp just exactly how a major interval differs from a perfect interval? Alas, the symmetry of such a scale was swapped out for the concept of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_%28music%29">tonic</a>. Having done most of my playing on a one-note horn, and never having been taught improvisation, I still only have a fuzzy grasp of harmonics. The idea of connecting that to what's on sheet music and what's on a piano or guitar comes as naturally to me as playing Boggle in Spanish. I have a rookie-level ability to pronounce printed words (I have to look up how to pronounce words like "ciudad") and would be an abysmal failure at writing down words I know by ear ("quatro" vs. "cuatro").</p><p>Another mystery to me was the "Every Good Boy Does Fine" vs. "Good Boys Do Fine Always" discrepancy (treble clef versus bass clef). It didn't matter to me when I stuck to one instrument. But after a few lessons on the classical guitar (which was already rough going), I was asked to take lessons on the electric bass guitar to replace another student (Chris W.<a href="#FOOTNOTE2"><span style="vertical-align: super; color: rgb(196, 0, 0);font-size:78%;" >**</span></a>) in the jazz band, because he was moving. If I recall correctly, his family had a change of plans so he quickly returned and I was spared the agony of compounding two unfamiliar tasks--playing a string instrument and reading bass clef. Unfortunately, it also meant I never resumed the classical guitar lessons.</p><p></p><hr width="50%"><p><a name="FOOTNOTE1"><span style="color: rgb(0, 196, 0);">*</span></a> On my list of most embarrassing moments is the time I was hired at age 17 to be part of a trumpet trio playing Christmas music in front of a large congregation. At the last minute, we were told to transpose to another key to make it easier for the pianist. The other two more experienced players said "no problem" but I managed to inject a plethora of sour notes. <a href="http://www.two--four.net/comments.php?id=P2996_0_1_0"><i>"A little bit of humiliation goes a long way."</i></a></p><hr width="50%"><p><a name="FOOTNOTE2"><span style="color: rgb(196, 0, 0);">**</span></a>My Best Man at my wedding, Carlos, played with Chris in a band, doing gigs for high school parties. They were often arguing over what songs to play. As a bassist, Chris was always wanting to play Rush songs, which are heavy on Geddy Lee's bass playing. Chris was most famous in the high school band for keeping a book of quotes of our band director's humorous impromptu aphorisms. After it became well-known, Mr. M. would add, "Put that in your little book, Mr. W!" afterwards.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-69645234352355527032010-04-21T17:50:00.003-05:002010-04-21T17:54:58.374-05:00B.O.H.I.C.A.<p>From the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax">AP</a>:</p><blockquote>President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.<p></p><p>Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."</p></blockquote><p>Here's an option: cancel all the rubber checks you've been writing and let people decide how to spend their own goddamned money.</p>Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-70612471709480284262010-04-21T17:12:00.002-05:002010-04-21T17:16:50.279-05:00Bill Clinton paraphrases Billy BeckWhen I <a href="http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/04/we-have-arrived-bill-clinton-denounces.html">first read</a> the "hatriot" section of Bill Clinton's speech, I told my wife that he was quoting Billy Beck (well, almost). Apparently, <a href="http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P4927">Billy didn't miss that</a>, nor did the many people who sent him e-mail about it.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-51700189573212608942010-04-21T14:39:00.006-05:002010-04-21T18:27:32.236-05:00Idol Season 9, Top 7<p>Tuesday night was mostly disappointing:</p><ol>
<li><b>Crystal Bowersox</b> (<i>"People Get Ready"</i> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Mayfield" title="Curtis Mayfield">Curtis Mayfield</a>) - Again, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Crystal</span> beats everyone else. This time, she outdoes the best of the rest by the biggest margin yet. I loved her <em>a capella</em> opening. She didn't allow the music to overtake her voice. Even a couple seconds of crying was forgivable, given the awesomeness of her performance. Speaking of forgiveness, the lyrics make reference to the more obnoxious side of Christianity ("no room ... no hiding"). Even an atheist like me can appreciate a moving gospel song about love and charity if it has a good melody and is sung beautifully. I just don't care for the hellfire, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind_%28series%29">Left Behind</a> crap.
</li><li><b>Lee DeWyze</b> (<i>"The Boxer"</i> by Paul Simon) - I love this song. While <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lee</span> didn't live up to the original, he did a very good job. It was very moving at times. There were a few rough spots, but not many. Even better than the original was a cover by James Taylor and Alison Krauss at the 2002 Kennedy Center Honors tribute to Paul Simon. It's worth it if you can find it. (Incidentally, <b>Lee DeWyze</b>, like Taylor & Krauss, skipped the verses which included the line: <i>"Just a come on from the whores on Seventh Avenue."</i> I listened Simon & Garfunkel's version for years, oblivious to the exact words they were singing until I actually read it.)
</li><li><b>TIE Siobhan Magnus</b> (<i>"When You Believe"</i> by Mariah Carey, et al.) and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Michael Lynche</span> (<span style="font-style: italic;">"Hero"</span> by Nickleback) - I was disappointed with both performers. I'd say they were a distant third, behind a distant second, which is not a good place to be. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Siobhan</span> was very boring and her voice got nasal at times. Otherwise, her singing was excellent. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Michael</span> let the music overshadow his voice at times, even though his vocals were excellent, as well. Neither of them moved me, like <span style="font-weight: bold;">Crystal</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lee</span>.
</li></ol>I curse <span style="font-weight: bold;">Casey</span> for playing that song that the Clintons forever ruined for me.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495183.post-34778722327594061142010-04-20T10:41:00.002-05:002010-04-20T10:45:06.234-05:00Taking Bill Clinton to TaskRadley Balko <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2010/04/19/government-violence-and-bill-clinton/">takes Bill Clinton to task</a> for his cynical exploitation of the Oklahoma City bombing and his revisionist whitewashing of what his people did in Waco. I <a href="/2010/04/bill-clinton-waves-around-timothy.html">mentioned</a> a few of the same things last Friday, in a response to an early Balko article.Elliothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17180592837977576951noreply@blogger.com0