Beastie Boys - Paul's Boutique
Danielson - Ships
Minus 5 - Minus 5
Roy - Killed John Train
Television Personalities - My Dark Places
Tom Verlaine - Around
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Capsule Music Review - Belle and Sebastian
Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit
B&S's traditional appeal has been its mopey style and sensitive approach, hilariously dissed in the movie High Fidelity.
Whether group leader Stuart Murdoch has reached a happier place, or wants to reach a larger audience, is unknown, but now B&S is a highly expert pop band writing cheerful, catchy songs.
Nevertheless, the lyrics have a bite that one does not normally associate with pop music, putting this band on a higher level. Song quality is consistent and excellent.
B&S's traditional appeal has been its mopey style and sensitive approach, hilariously dissed in the movie High Fidelity.
Whether group leader Stuart Murdoch has reached a happier place, or wants to reach a larger audience, is unknown, but now B&S is a highly expert pop band writing cheerful, catchy songs.
Nevertheless, the lyrics have a bite that one does not normally associate with pop music, putting this band on a higher level. Song quality is consistent and excellent.
Friday, July 28, 2006
ABA Task Force Recommendation on Presidential Signing Statements
Just finished reading the ABA Task Force Recommendation on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The Report analyzes and makes recommendations with respect to the President's use of signing statements to disregard the rule of law.
The Report confirms, as any marginally sentient being has known for at least five years, that the Bush Administration represents the greatest threat to America as we know it in at least the last 50 years. Arguably, Bush represents an even greater existential threat to the country than the Nazis in WW II.
The Report concludes that Presidential signing statements may be used solely for the purpose of illuminating the President's understanding of the meaning of a statute. He may not use it to justify disregarding the law.
The report tries to be non-partisan and level-headed, but the contempt of the authors for the Bush administration is palpable. For starters, the report makes no bones about the fact that through the signing statements, Bush is literally assuming kingly powers. The report also makes thinly veiled threats of removal from office, comparing Bush's actions unfavorably to those of King James II "which ultimately occasioned his dethronement" and suggested that legislation by Congress allowing judicial review of signing statements would "demonstrate an eagerness to play by constitutional rules short of impeachment."
The historical discussion of signing statements is interesting also in that it highlights the non-constitutional problem with the signing statements, a problem that permeates the entire Bush administration, which is that the real reason for the signing statements is not that Bush feels the power of the President needs to be expanded, but that by creating such statements as an alternative to vetos Bush avoids political accountability. Few people know about the signing statements, and most Americans would be unable to understand their import even if they knew about them. By signing a bill and then secretly refusing to enforce it he can have it both ways - take credit for the bill in public while eviscerating its effectivenss.
But perhaps the saddest sentence in the report is the coda to the task force's suggestion that the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the signing statements: "It is to be hoped that the President would obey any constitutional declaration of the Supreme Court." What does it say about the state of the country that we need to worry about whether a President will obey an order of the Supreme Court?
The Report confirms, as any marginally sentient being has known for at least five years, that the Bush Administration represents the greatest threat to America as we know it in at least the last 50 years. Arguably, Bush represents an even greater existential threat to the country than the Nazis in WW II.
The Report concludes that Presidential signing statements may be used solely for the purpose of illuminating the President's understanding of the meaning of a statute. He may not use it to justify disregarding the law.
The report tries to be non-partisan and level-headed, but the contempt of the authors for the Bush administration is palpable. For starters, the report makes no bones about the fact that through the signing statements, Bush is literally assuming kingly powers. The report also makes thinly veiled threats of removal from office, comparing Bush's actions unfavorably to those of King James II "which ultimately occasioned his dethronement" and suggested that legislation by Congress allowing judicial review of signing statements would "demonstrate an eagerness to play by constitutional rules short of impeachment."
The task force pointedly quotes at length from Jimmy Carter's 1978 signing statement for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (you know, the law that Bush keeps ignoring) as an example of a proper signing statement.
But perhaps the saddest sentence in the report is the coda to the task force's suggestion that the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the signing statements: "It is to be hoped that the President would obey any constitutional declaration of the Supreme Court." What does it say about the state of the country that we need to worry about whether a President will obey an order of the Supreme Court?
Misleading headline on Huffington Post
I find a headline on the Huffington post regarding the deaths of four UN observers in Lebanon to be misleading and dishonest. The headline says "Israel Refuses Investigation of UN Deaths," implying that Israel is refusing to investigate the deaths. In fact, Israel is pledging to investigate the deaths, but is declining to conduct a joint investigation with the UN.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Capsule Music Review - Band of Horses
Band of Horses - Everything All the Time
I do most of my listening in the car, and I try to put the discs in alphabetical order so I can keep track of what I'm listening to. I went all the way through this debut album by Band of Horses before I realized it wasn't Built to Spill.
The commonalities are the high-pitched vocals and sophisticated approach of prog-rock. In retrospect, the comparison is superficial, as Band of Horses shoots for a more lyrical place, with some excellent and moving songwriting. The reverb-y vocals are also reminiscent of My Morning Jacket.
The sum total is solid, and occasionally compelling alt-rock with high-quality songwriting and flashes of great beauty, especially the album closer "St. Augustine". "The Great Salt Lake" also stands out as a well-constructed song with nice dynamics.
I do most of my listening in the car, and I try to put the discs in alphabetical order so I can keep track of what I'm listening to. I went all the way through this debut album by Band of Horses before I realized it wasn't Built to Spill.
The commonalities are the high-pitched vocals and sophisticated approach of prog-rock. In retrospect, the comparison is superficial, as Band of Horses shoots for a more lyrical place, with some excellent and moving songwriting. The reverb-y vocals are also reminiscent of My Morning Jacket.
The sum total is solid, and occasionally compelling alt-rock with high-quality songwriting and flashes of great beauty, especially the album closer "St. Augustine". "The Great Salt Lake" also stands out as a well-constructed song with nice dynamics.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Capsule Music Review - Neil Young
Neil Young - Living with War
Few artists do disintegration better than Neil Young, as in his best records Tonight's the Night and Rust Never Sleeps. Unfortunately he doesn't do calls to action quite so well. True, Neil deserves major points for unambiguously attacking the Bush administration, a small thing you might say, but who else is doing it? The Dixie Chicks?
However, these songs are overall fairly weak, with cheesy chorused vocals to create a simulacrum of collective action, and lazy lyrics that rely too heavily on now hackneyed phrases like "shock and awe," "mission accomplished" and "smoking gun." Neil's laziness drains the power from the songs, favoring vague generalities over more powerful specificity: sadly, and with a nod to Stalin, "thousands buried in the ground" is less powerful than "four dead in Ohio."
The only really successful song is "Lookin' for a Leader," in which Neil identifies explicitly potential replacements for Bush who might have a chance to set things right.
Few artists do disintegration better than Neil Young, as in his best records Tonight's the Night and Rust Never Sleeps. Unfortunately he doesn't do calls to action quite so well. True, Neil deserves major points for unambiguously attacking the Bush administration, a small thing you might say, but who else is doing it? The Dixie Chicks?
However, these songs are overall fairly weak, with cheesy chorused vocals to create a simulacrum of collective action, and lazy lyrics that rely too heavily on now hackneyed phrases like "shock and awe," "mission accomplished" and "smoking gun." Neil's laziness drains the power from the songs, favoring vague generalities over more powerful specificity: sadly, and with a nod to Stalin, "thousands buried in the ground" is less powerful than "four dead in Ohio."
The only really successful song is "Lookin' for a Leader," in which Neil identifies explicitly potential replacements for Bush who might have a chance to set things right.
Music capsule reviews - Arctic Monkeys
Arctic Monkeys - Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not
One of this year's hyped bands is neither as good nor as bad as the hype would suggest. Tracks are at breakneck speed in the '80s dance-punk vein, with that unmistakable snotty UK attitude. The hit, "I Bet You Look Good on the Dance Floor," would be a worthy addition to any 2006 compilation.
One of this year's hyped bands is neither as good nor as bad as the hype would suggest. Tracks are at breakneck speed in the '80s dance-punk vein, with that unmistakable snotty UK attitude. The hit, "I Bet You Look Good on the Dance Floor," would be a worthy addition to any 2006 compilation.
Tony Snowjob on murder
On July 19 Tony Snow said that Bush believed that stem cell research was "murder." On July 24, Snow (apparently the most incompetent press secretary in U.S. history) said, oops, I didn't mean to say that, I was "overstating the president's position."
As others have noted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/a-summer-snow-job-the-st_b_25779.html) what the hell is going on here? Is it possible that Snow could have inadvertently used the term murder? Did he not discuss this with the President, or anyone else who knew what passes for the President's mind on this subject?
My belief is that the whole thing was set up - Snow refers to stem cell research as murder, then pretends to have misrepresented the President's view.
Why? The original statement prompts the headline "President's spokesman says stem cell research is murder!" Yippee, go the conservatives. The liberals get all upset.
A few days later, Snow says he overstated the position, but note he did not say "Bush thinks stem cell research is not murder." That would have upset the right wing. Instead he says Bush "would not use that term." Really? Well, what term would he use? The story does not get reported.
The result? Bush got his message across to the right wing, and liberals can't accuse Bush of taking the patently absurd position that stem cell research is murder because Bush can deny ever having said it.
As others have noted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/a-summer-snow-job-the-st_b_25779.html) what the hell is going on here? Is it possible that Snow could have inadvertently used the term murder? Did he not discuss this with the President, or anyone else who knew what passes for the President's mind on this subject?
My belief is that the whole thing was set up - Snow refers to stem cell research as murder, then pretends to have misrepresented the President's view.
Why? The original statement prompts the headline "President's spokesman says stem cell research is murder!" Yippee, go the conservatives. The liberals get all upset.
A few days later, Snow says he overstated the position, but note he did not say "Bush thinks stem cell research is not murder." That would have upset the right wing. Instead he says Bush "would not use that term." Really? Well, what term would he use? The story does not get reported.
The result? Bush got his message across to the right wing, and liberals can't accuse Bush of taking the patently absurd position that stem cell research is murder because Bush can deny ever having said it.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Name that quote
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Ron Suskind on Bush? Nope, the OSS on Hitler during WWII.
Ron Suskind on Bush? Nope, the OSS on Hitler during WWII.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Ghok Buti's Three Fundamental Laws
Yes, I know I said the first rule was that the Bush admin always lies. Okay, that's not fundamental.
Here are the Three Fundamental Laws:
1. Everything is overdetermined
Taught me by my analyst. It means that there's never only one reason. For anything. Doesn't matter what it is: personal foibles, environmental crises, political actions, sports results.
2. This is not a damned football game.
Taken from a powerful moment in the movie Failsafe. This is not a zero sum game. Best example: no matter how moronic Republicans are, they're still Americans and they're still people. It is essential we show them the error of their ways. Even if it were possible to crush them, we would all lose.
3. It is futile to reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned nto.
Jonathan Swift. Stop trying to explain to Republicans why a cluster of cells one-tenth the size of a period is not a person. Instead, tell them that their leaders are lying to them for their own political gain, and let them go home and think about it.
The "Bush administrati0n always lies" rule could be thought of as a corollary to the Third Law of Ghok Buti.
Here are the Three Fundamental Laws:
1. Everything is overdetermined
Taught me by my analyst. It means that there's never only one reason. For anything. Doesn't matter what it is: personal foibles, environmental crises, political actions, sports results.
2. This is not a damned football game.
Taken from a powerful moment in the movie Failsafe. This is not a zero sum game. Best example: no matter how moronic Republicans are, they're still Americans and they're still people. It is essential we show them the error of their ways. Even if it were possible to crush them, we would all lose.
3. It is futile to reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned nto.
Jonathan Swift. Stop trying to explain to Republicans why a cluster of cells one-tenth the size of a period is not a person. Instead, tell them that their leaders are lying to them for their own political gain, and let them go home and think about it.
The "Bush administrati0n always lies" rule could be thought of as a corollary to the Third Law of Ghok Buti.
Bolten on Meet the Press
Just saw Josh Bolten on Meet the Press. Seems like an articulate, intelligent guy. Let's not forget the Ghok Buti First Principle: everything the Bush administration says is a lie.
What can we learn then from applying the first principle to Bolten's appearance?:
The Busb administration doesn't want a cease-fire in Lebanon because they're hoping it will trigger a Mideast-wide conflagration.
The Bush administration does not believe that Iraq will turn into a democratic ally of the United States.
Bush doesn't care about the fate of embryos.
What kind of President sacrifices human life for the sake of his own political fortunes?
What kind of person does that make Josh Bolten?
What can we learn then from applying the first principle to Bolten's appearance?:
The Busb administration doesn't want a cease-fire in Lebanon because they're hoping it will trigger a Mideast-wide conflagration.
The Bush administration does not believe that Iraq will turn into a democratic ally of the United States.
Bush doesn't care about the fate of embryos.
What kind of President sacrifices human life for the sake of his own political fortunes?
What kind of person does that make Josh Bolten?
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Welcome to my blog
Welcome to the first real post of my new blog. Will anyone besides myself read it? Let's find out together.
Expect me to post something every day, as my schedule allows. Typical topics will include music, literature, politics, popular culture, and dime-store philosophy.
Flamers (if I'm lucky enough to get them) will be terminated with extreme prejudice.
For the time being. anyone can post without becoming a member, which will continue to be the policy unless it gets out of hand.
Expect me to post something every day, as my schedule allows. Typical topics will include music, literature, politics, popular culture, and dime-store philosophy.
Flamers (if I'm lucky enough to get them) will be terminated with extreme prejudice.
For the time being. anyone can post without becoming a member, which will continue to be the policy unless it gets out of hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)