This one is a hoot!
My good and dear friends at the American Family Association sent me e-mail the other day and, though I've been slow to post about it, I couldn't resist.
The subject? "Pornographers Set To Go After Children With Cell Phones"
Shocking. Positively shocking!
"Soon pornography will be available to our children over their cell phones. Playboy hopes to make their porn available to the 170 million cell phone subscribers throughout North America. No doubt scores of other pornographers will follow Playboy's lead."
Do you get the sense that there's stuff here they're leaving out? I mean, just think about it.
"An independent study by IDC revealed that 33.2% of cell phone users in America, more than 55 million, are between the ages of 5 and 19." Yes, and apparently Playboy will indiscriminately send porn to ALL cell phone users for FREE without CHECKING who they're SENDING it to.
Oy.
Talk show host Paul McGuire of Los Angeles says of the Playboy effort: "…soon cell phones will open a tsunami of porn images…" He went on to say "just like the Internet, it will be hard to keep [this] sexual perversion from young people."
Because, of course, talk show hosts are always subject matter experts. The problem here, at least for me, is that the mobile phone industry is very tightly regulated. The Internet is not. The comparison is faulty.
But here's the funniest bit: "We can expect our children to have pop-up ads on their cell phones pushing Playboy's pornography. Playboy says their new venture will allow more people to experience 'the sexiness of the classic Playboy lifestyle.' Unfortunately many of these people will be our children."
Pop-up ads.
On cell phones.
Words fail.
Paper tigers and straw men. These people are just plain weird.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
politics: Microsoft dances with the devil
I reiterate this here for friends of mine who may not read my friend kniwt's blog or Americablog: Microsoft paying Religious Right leader Ralph Reed $20,000 a month retainer.
Evil. Evil. Evil. I knew it. And yes, I even knew it before He Who Shall Not Be Named. I'll have it known that while I was chatting with him online the first time, or one of the first times, I was recompiling the kernel on my Linux box. And everyone has known, and derided, my longtime infatuation with the BeOS (now sadly past). So I've been trying to get away for a long time.
For $10,000 a month I'll give them some good PR advice: Stop hooking up with right-wing zealots. That would be good. And work with the GLBT community. You have a lot of gay employees and you can't get anything but a black eye from pissing in their cornflakes (if I may mix a couple of metaphors).
Evil. Evil. Evil. I knew it. And yes, I even knew it before He Who Shall Not Be Named. I'll have it known that while I was chatting with him online the first time, or one of the first times, I was recompiling the kernel on my Linux box. And everyone has known, and derided, my longtime infatuation with the BeOS (now sadly past). So I've been trying to get away for a long time.
For $10,000 a month I'll give them some good PR advice: Stop hooking up with right-wing zealots. That would be good. And work with the GLBT community. You have a lot of gay employees and you can't get anything but a black eye from pissing in their cornflakes (if I may mix a couple of metaphors).
Friday, April 22, 2005
Haiku Rd.: The road is long. And so is this entry.
Politics will return to these pages soon. But for now, a brief, self-indulgent aside.
So as far as our public image goes, Haiku Rd. has gone missing lately. Our next show isn't until May 6 (check in at our Web site for news and updates) and it's been a few weeks since our last one. Nothing else on the calendar. Why is that, you may ask? Have they broken up? Are they so busy they don't have time?
To you all I say nay!
Rather, we're at least hip deep in recording and sinking fast. It's a hell of a lot of fun.
I don't want to give a whole lot of secrets away, but a sizeable chunk of our best (and fan favorite) songs are already starting to take shape, like "Suddenly Silent," "One Leg at a Time (The Pants Song)" and "Take Me Out," as well as an instrumental I've wanted to record for a long time. Come to think of it, I already have, but it was more of a novelty experiment than an actual attempt.
We're working on this very, very carefully. We've already spent more in-studio time on this than we did on the first Hadrian's Wall album, and we're barely started. I'm not sure where Erik and Richard come down on the timeline, but my feeling is that we'll be working on principal recording through May or so. Re-recording, fixing and adding extra touches will probably last us through most of June, then a couple of weeks to a month for mixing, sequencing (putting the songs in the right order and doing cross-fades or figuring how much silence to put between songs) and mastering. I figure by mid to late summer we'll be done. Then we've got to send it off for duplication/manufacturing. And somewhere in there we have to do the title, cover and inserts. But with three creative minds, at least two of which have no small amount of graphic design experience, that should be no problem.
So a short treatise now on our recording equipment and methods, just because I feel like geeking out (and also documenting it).
As far as the equipment goes, we have the same instruments we use for performing (my two Oscar Schmidt acoustic guitars, Richard's Fender acoustic guitar and Erik's bass and electric guitars [whose manufacturers escape me]), plus a cheap-ass bodhran from Musician's Friend and my Alesis QS6.1 synth. Other instruments may make brief visits to the 'studio' as needs require. I don't want to spoil any surprises or scare anyone away, so I'll leave that vague.
The studio so far consists of two separate and distinct locations: My office (for recording keyboard parts, since inexplicably there is a loud and ineradicable electric hum whenever I plug the keyboard into Richard's equipment) and Richard's living room, for everything else.
The setup at Richard's place has its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, the hardware and software are excellent (if a tad buggy sometimes) and space is ample. On the minus side, we have no way to isolate players, so anything recorded via microphone (which is just about everything) must be recorded singly. Also, because the computer is in the same room and the floors are industrial carpet over plywood, it's practically impossible to completely isolate the microphones from fan noise and other computer hums. We've managed to keep them down to a manageable level, but so far, they're still there.
We're recording through an Aardvark DirectPro Q10 into Richard's Windows XP machine running Cakewalk's Sonar 3 Producer Edition. There's a Shure SM-58 microphone present, as is a condenser microphone whose brand and specifications escape me. We've gotten good results double-micing the guitars, a procedure we've adopted so we can mix-and-match the different tones, or pan them slightly left and/or right for a nice stereo effect.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. After a number of unsuccessful (and at times nearly fistfight-inducing) attempts at finding a procedure for recording that works for all three of us, we've hit on a way of working that seems to fit our character as a band. To start off, we establish a tempo for the song and MIDI up the keyboard to give us a metronome sound. We record this to one audio track while we have all of our instruments plugged into separate inputs on the Aardvark. Usually, we'll leave off the vocal mic, but sometimes it's helpful.
From there, we punch record and run straight through the song, mistakes and all. Usually, one take is enough unless there's a major boo-boo or if we all miss a cue or something.
We take this track as a foundation, then go through and rerecord every instrument and all the vocals. As the track takes on its own rhythmic feel, we mute the click track to try to get a more organic feel. But we have a lot of songs with stops and starts, so we need the click track in order to sync everyone up properly. Once the 'basic tracks' are done, we go through and remove the original 'scratch' tracks to save space and avoid confusion.
From there, we add other instruments (or at least we will; so far only one song has been augmented with keyboards, and even these are likely to be completely redone before long). Thus far, I've avoided sequencing any of the keyboard parts, because I tend to get very perfectionist with MIDI sequences, quantizing and fixing stray notes in the software; everything I've done has been live to 'tape'.
Then we'll mix, add effects, etc., in what I hope is a more or less collaborative process (it's Richard's equipment, Erik is in many senses a sonic wizard and there are certain parts of this recording that I can hear perfectly clearly in my head). I'm sure that as we do this, it will be evident that there are pieces here and there that need polish or slight redoing.
Et cetera, et cetera.
When the time comes for the remixes, I'll blather on about how I do that. That's a really fun process (I acquired the master tracks from Marillion's Anoraknophobia album and have been remixing them over the last year or so -- only two done so far, but if you're interested in hearing them, let me know and I'll make them available to you) that I love to talk about endlessly and bore people with.
When I have interesting news to share during this recording process, I'll talk about it more. I really think it'll be interesting to relate how put our instrumental together when we get there; it's going to be a combination of loops, audio editing and live playing. On the Hadrian's Wall album, "Home" was the track on which we really spread our wings in the studio and tried interesting things (which may or may not be apparent from listening to it). This instrumental, I think, will be the analog on this recording.
We're also planning on doing one written-in-the-studio song just to stir things up a bit. What I want out of this album (and I'm only speaking for myself here) is an album that people with a rock/pop aesthetic can listen to and think we've got some good tunes and a good rhythm, and only after some time realize that there's a lot of acoustic instrumentation and almost no percussion; and that folkies can listen to and grok the folk sensibility and get drawn in before being shocked by the subtle use of electrics, electronics and studio editing and production techniques. At this stage in the game, I want to be clever but not groundbreaking. That'll be the next album.
All right, enough. Back to the usual stuff.
So as far as our public image goes, Haiku Rd. has gone missing lately. Our next show isn't until May 6 (check in at our Web site for news and updates) and it's been a few weeks since our last one. Nothing else on the calendar. Why is that, you may ask? Have they broken up? Are they so busy they don't have time?
To you all I say nay!
Rather, we're at least hip deep in recording and sinking fast. It's a hell of a lot of fun.
I don't want to give a whole lot of secrets away, but a sizeable chunk of our best (and fan favorite) songs are already starting to take shape, like "Suddenly Silent," "One Leg at a Time (The Pants Song)" and "Take Me Out," as well as an instrumental I've wanted to record for a long time. Come to think of it, I already have, but it was more of a novelty experiment than an actual attempt.
We're working on this very, very carefully. We've already spent more in-studio time on this than we did on the first Hadrian's Wall album, and we're barely started. I'm not sure where Erik and Richard come down on the timeline, but my feeling is that we'll be working on principal recording through May or so. Re-recording, fixing and adding extra touches will probably last us through most of June, then a couple of weeks to a month for mixing, sequencing (putting the songs in the right order and doing cross-fades or figuring how much silence to put between songs) and mastering. I figure by mid to late summer we'll be done. Then we've got to send it off for duplication/manufacturing. And somewhere in there we have to do the title, cover and inserts. But with three creative minds, at least two of which have no small amount of graphic design experience, that should be no problem.
So a short treatise now on our recording equipment and methods, just because I feel like geeking out (and also documenting it).
As far as the equipment goes, we have the same instruments we use for performing (my two Oscar Schmidt acoustic guitars, Richard's Fender acoustic guitar and Erik's bass and electric guitars [whose manufacturers escape me]), plus a cheap-ass bodhran from Musician's Friend and my Alesis QS6.1 synth. Other instruments may make brief visits to the 'studio' as needs require. I don't want to spoil any surprises or scare anyone away, so I'll leave that vague.
The studio so far consists of two separate and distinct locations: My office (for recording keyboard parts, since inexplicably there is a loud and ineradicable electric hum whenever I plug the keyboard into Richard's equipment) and Richard's living room, for everything else.
The setup at Richard's place has its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, the hardware and software are excellent (if a tad buggy sometimes) and space is ample. On the minus side, we have no way to isolate players, so anything recorded via microphone (which is just about everything) must be recorded singly. Also, because the computer is in the same room and the floors are industrial carpet over plywood, it's practically impossible to completely isolate the microphones from fan noise and other computer hums. We've managed to keep them down to a manageable level, but so far, they're still there.
We're recording through an Aardvark DirectPro Q10 into Richard's Windows XP machine running Cakewalk's Sonar 3 Producer Edition. There's a Shure SM-58 microphone present, as is a condenser microphone whose brand and specifications escape me. We've gotten good results double-micing the guitars, a procedure we've adopted so we can mix-and-match the different tones, or pan them slightly left and/or right for a nice stereo effect.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. After a number of unsuccessful (and at times nearly fistfight-inducing) attempts at finding a procedure for recording that works for all three of us, we've hit on a way of working that seems to fit our character as a band. To start off, we establish a tempo for the song and MIDI up the keyboard to give us a metronome sound. We record this to one audio track while we have all of our instruments plugged into separate inputs on the Aardvark. Usually, we'll leave off the vocal mic, but sometimes it's helpful.
From there, we punch record and run straight through the song, mistakes and all. Usually, one take is enough unless there's a major boo-boo or if we all miss a cue or something.
We take this track as a foundation, then go through and rerecord every instrument and all the vocals. As the track takes on its own rhythmic feel, we mute the click track to try to get a more organic feel. But we have a lot of songs with stops and starts, so we need the click track in order to sync everyone up properly. Once the 'basic tracks' are done, we go through and remove the original 'scratch' tracks to save space and avoid confusion.
From there, we add other instruments (or at least we will; so far only one song has been augmented with keyboards, and even these are likely to be completely redone before long). Thus far, I've avoided sequencing any of the keyboard parts, because I tend to get very perfectionist with MIDI sequences, quantizing and fixing stray notes in the software; everything I've done has been live to 'tape'.
Then we'll mix, add effects, etc., in what I hope is a more or less collaborative process (it's Richard's equipment, Erik is in many senses a sonic wizard and there are certain parts of this recording that I can hear perfectly clearly in my head). I'm sure that as we do this, it will be evident that there are pieces here and there that need polish or slight redoing.
Et cetera, et cetera.
When the time comes for the remixes, I'll blather on about how I do that. That's a really fun process (I acquired the master tracks from Marillion's Anoraknophobia album and have been remixing them over the last year or so -- only two done so far, but if you're interested in hearing them, let me know and I'll make them available to you) that I love to talk about endlessly and bore people with.
When I have interesting news to share during this recording process, I'll talk about it more. I really think it'll be interesting to relate how put our instrumental together when we get there; it's going to be a combination of loops, audio editing and live playing. On the Hadrian's Wall album, "Home" was the track on which we really spread our wings in the studio and tried interesting things (which may or may not be apparent from listening to it). This instrumental, I think, will be the analog on this recording.
We're also planning on doing one written-in-the-studio song just to stir things up a bit. What I want out of this album (and I'm only speaking for myself here) is an album that people with a rock/pop aesthetic can listen to and think we've got some good tunes and a good rhythm, and only after some time realize that there's a lot of acoustic instrumentation and almost no percussion; and that folkies can listen to and grok the folk sensibility and get drawn in before being shocked by the subtle use of electrics, electronics and studio editing and production techniques. At this stage in the game, I want to be clever but not groundbreaking. That'll be the next album.
All right, enough. Back to the usual stuff.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
social issues: The progressive beacon on the hill -- Spain?!
Freedom is breaking out all over.
I couldn't have phrased this better myself, and I find myself wishing we had high-ranking government officials who had this kind of perspective on rights and freedoms:
Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".
Meanwhile the American Taliban struggles to make a retarded theocracy of my beloved home country, binding hundreds of millions of people to their prehistoric, juvenile attitudes to sex (EWWWW! Boobies!) and society.
I couldn't have phrased this better myself, and I find myself wishing we had high-ranking government officials who had this kind of perspective on rights and freedoms:
Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".
Meanwhile the American Taliban struggles to make a retarded theocracy of my beloved home country, binding hundreds of millions of people to their prehistoric, juvenile attitudes to sex (EWWWW! Boobies!) and society.
politics: A short entry about John Bolton (apologies to Neil Gaiman)
The title of this article made me laugh. Out loud. At work.
It was embarrassing.
Politics is the only reason why anyone with even half a brain would entertain for the briefest moment the notion of confirming this man as the UN ambassador. He gives every impression of being an intolerant, unstable bully with absolutely no facility for diplomacy whatsoever. And he certainly has a broad and threatening attitude toward the United Nations that, until he was up for the job, he didn't even bother to conceal or moderate.
So blind adherence to party dictates from on high is the only thing I can think of that would act in his favor. So go on, you Republican senators who long ago sold out your scruples and who put supremacy of party over the interests of the people and the nation you claim to serve. Go on, vote for the bastard.
Anyone else with a spine and a conscience, go ahead. Set politics aside. And see the man for what he is. Thanks, George!
It was embarrassing.
Politics is the only reason why anyone with even half a brain would entertain for the briefest moment the notion of confirming this man as the UN ambassador. He gives every impression of being an intolerant, unstable bully with absolutely no facility for diplomacy whatsoever. And he certainly has a broad and threatening attitude toward the United Nations that, until he was up for the job, he didn't even bother to conceal or moderate.
So blind adherence to party dictates from on high is the only thing I can think of that would act in his favor. So go on, you Republican senators who long ago sold out your scruples and who put supremacy of party over the interests of the people and the nation you claim to serve. Go on, vote for the bastard.
Anyone else with a spine and a conscience, go ahead. Set politics aside. And see the man for what he is. Thanks, George!
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
social issues: A simple, humble worker in God's vineyard?
There's a minor thing that bugs me about Benedict XVI. I'm leaving all of the nastier allegations alone; they're being done to death in other forums, and a lot of them seem unfair to me (and I'm no great fan of the Catholic Church in general or of Cardinal Ratzinger in particular).
But something rubs me the wrong way about a man bedecked in gold damask, grasping and flanked by ostentatious objects and reminders of the church's obscene wealth and power, describing himself as "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard."
The Dalai Lama, now there's a man who practices that about which he preaches, simple but elegant and radiating peace.
By comparison, the Vatican and the Bishop of Rome seem hopelessly mired in their own bureaucracy, believing their own PR and peddling influence in an unseemly way.
But something rubs me the wrong way about a man bedecked in gold damask, grasping and flanked by ostentatious objects and reminders of the church's obscene wealth and power, describing himself as "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard."
The Dalai Lama, now there's a man who practices that about which he preaches, simple but elegant and radiating peace.
By comparison, the Vatican and the Bishop of Rome seem hopelessly mired in their own bureaucracy, believing their own PR and peddling influence in an unseemly way.
Monday, April 18, 2005
politics: Shameless rationalizing
Thanks to Rachel Maddow, I was lucky enough to read this article from Newsmax republished at The Conservative Voice.
I can't really add much to what Rachel said (follow the link above), except to marvel at the ingenious confluence of sexism, rationalizing and just flat-out abnegation of reality. I mean, even if I were to grant their basic premise that the presence of women in Army units hampered their ability to go after Osama bin Laden, wouldn't that point to really, really bad planning on the Army's part (or, perhaps, it might suggest that women should be allowed to participate in combat) instead of the unworkability of allowing women in the Army?
*sigh*
I can't really add much to what Rachel said (follow the link above), except to marvel at the ingenious confluence of sexism, rationalizing and just flat-out abnegation of reality. I mean, even if I were to grant their basic premise that the presence of women in Army units hampered their ability to go after Osama bin Laden, wouldn't that point to really, really bad planning on the Army's part (or, perhaps, it might suggest that women should be allowed to participate in combat) instead of the unworkability of allowing women in the Army?
*sigh*
Friday, April 15, 2005
politics: Oops.
So yeah. I got e-mail from Mark J. Yannone.
Decided I didn't need the stress. Was mildly curious about how he got the e-mail address, but only mildly; it's pretty easy to find if you go looking. Deleted it.
Had second thoughts. Realized I'd promised to post any responses I got.
Feel mildly guilty about calling him a nutbar. Petulant, certainly. Politically utopian (read: unrealistic). Definitely of the shoot-the-mouth-off-first, think-second, variety. But nutbar was probably a bit strong.
Anyway. Went to retrieve the e-mail and forward it to a friend so they could read it and post it for me so I would have some removal from the thing.
Unintentionally had already clicked 'empty trash'. Yannonemail gone.
Mr. Yannone, if you're reading, could you resend? Thankyew.
Decided I didn't need the stress. Was mildly curious about how he got the e-mail address, but only mildly; it's pretty easy to find if you go looking. Deleted it.
Had second thoughts. Realized I'd promised to post any responses I got.
Feel mildly guilty about calling him a nutbar. Petulant, certainly. Politically utopian (read: unrealistic). Definitely of the shoot-the-mouth-off-first, think-second, variety. But nutbar was probably a bit strong.
Anyway. Went to retrieve the e-mail and forward it to a friend so they could read it and post it for me so I would have some removal from the thing.
Unintentionally had already clicked 'empty trash'. Yannonemail gone.
Mr. Yannone, if you're reading, could you resend? Thankyew.
politics: An ancient fable?
OK, I'm blatantly stealing this from shanej at the Randi Rhodes Message Board:
The Wolf and the Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb, "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf, "if it was not you, it was your father," and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and "SLURPPPP" ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
---Æsop
Word.
The Wolf and the Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb, "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf, "if it was not you, it was your father," and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and "SLURPPPP" ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
---Æsop
Word.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
babylon 5: Excitement on e-bay
Looks like JMS is cleaning house. It is that time of year, after all.
Of course, none of the Babylon 5 stuff he's selling of is anywhere near a price I can afford. But the auction descriptions ... well, let's just say it's a pleasure reading an e-bay auction item description crafted by someone who actually knows how to write!
Anything Babylon 5- or Crusade-related would make a lovely gift for yours truly. But, well, maybe I should just take care of myself like a responsible adult.
Of course, none of the Babylon 5 stuff he's selling of is anywhere near a price I can afford. But the auction descriptions ... well, let's just say it's a pleasure reading an e-bay auction item description crafted by someone who actually knows how to write!
Anything Babylon 5- or Crusade-related would make a lovely gift for yours truly. But, well, maybe I should just take care of myself like a responsible adult.
politics: Well, THIS is what passes for a top story.
Copied-and-pasted from http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ ... :
Department of Homeland Security Announces Support for Rail Hazmat Placards
April 8, 2005 -- Speaking at the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner last night, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recommended continuation of the placard system for hazardous materials transported by rail. The placards are designed to ensure the safety of citizens and first responders and the decision came after the completion of a comprehensive study that included input from first responders, rail operators and other key stakeholders.
"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Homeland Security has completed a review of alternate technologies to the current Department of Transportation placard system,” said Secretary Chertoff. “Based on that study and the input of the first responder community, we are recommending that the Department of Transportation maintain the placard system. This is a common sense approach to risk management.”
Uh-huh. That's right.
It's good to know this redundant department, this phenomenal waste of taxpayer money is at least working on big-picture issues that keep the ... *ahem* homeland ... *ahem* secure.
Department of Homeland Security Announces Support for Rail Hazmat Placards
April 8, 2005 -- Speaking at the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner last night, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recommended continuation of the placard system for hazardous materials transported by rail. The placards are designed to ensure the safety of citizens and first responders and the decision came after the completion of a comprehensive study that included input from first responders, rail operators and other key stakeholders.
"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Homeland Security has completed a review of alternate technologies to the current Department of Transportation placard system,” said Secretary Chertoff. “Based on that study and the input of the first responder community, we are recommending that the Department of Transportation maintain the placard system. This is a common sense approach to risk management.”
Uh-huh. That's right.
It's good to know this redundant department, this phenomenal waste of taxpayer money is at least working on big-picture issues that keep the ... *ahem* homeland ... *ahem* secure.
social issues: Yeah, the storm is coming. Run for cover. No, really.
We can always trust that the wingnut press will come to the rescue of America with its balanced coverage of today's issues.
It was with much interest then that I read the article "Family Group Warns of 'Deviant Homosexual Content' on New Cable Networks". Before I even address the content of the article, I find it interesting that they even make a pretense of balanced coverage by including one, and only one, quote from an actual person on the anti-fascist side of this 'issue'. Granted, it's a good quote and one that, to any sane person, obviates all of the contrary wingnut actions and statements, but still ...
What kind of sad little world do they live in that they expect to see graphic sex acts on basic cable? Is it so inconceivable to them that it's possible to look at the world from a gay perspective without everything devolving into pornography?
It's been my observation that as gay America comes out of the closet and integrates more openly in society at large, it manifests itself in more normal and healthy ways. Repression and self-hatred breed deviancy, hypocrisy and dangerously self-destructive conduct.
And as for their complaints that the late-night programming on Here could turn "pornographic," well ... Anyone watched the late-night programming on HBO or Showtime lately? Since it's a video-on-demand service, it's a fair comparison. Double standards, anyone? The article mentions the video on demand at the start, then conveniently immediately forgets it, serving instead as a mouthpiece for chief American Family Association wingnut Timothy Wildmon's blithe ignorance of the truth.
Niche programming on basic cable? An outrage! An outrage, I tell you!
*sigh*
I do love to watch the AFA squirm and shriek, though. It's almost as entertaining as listening to Tom DeLay stick his foot in it again.
It was with much interest then that I read the article "Family Group Warns of 'Deviant Homosexual Content' on New Cable Networks". Before I even address the content of the article, I find it interesting that they even make a pretense of balanced coverage by including one, and only one, quote from an actual person on the anti-fascist side of this 'issue'. Granted, it's a good quote and one that, to any sane person, obviates all of the contrary wingnut actions and statements, but still ...
What kind of sad little world do they live in that they expect to see graphic sex acts on basic cable? Is it so inconceivable to them that it's possible to look at the world from a gay perspective without everything devolving into pornography?
It's been my observation that as gay America comes out of the closet and integrates more openly in society at large, it manifests itself in more normal and healthy ways. Repression and self-hatred breed deviancy, hypocrisy and dangerously self-destructive conduct.
And as for their complaints that the late-night programming on Here could turn "pornographic," well ... Anyone watched the late-night programming on HBO or Showtime lately? Since it's a video-on-demand service, it's a fair comparison. Double standards, anyone? The article mentions the video on demand at the start, then conveniently immediately forgets it, serving instead as a mouthpiece for chief American Family Association wingnut Timothy Wildmon's blithe ignorance of the truth.
Niche programming on basic cable? An outrage! An outrage, I tell you!
*sigh*
I do love to watch the AFA squirm and shriek, though. It's almost as entertaining as listening to Tom DeLay stick his foot in it again.
Monday, April 11, 2005
KXXT: Charles, please stop saying that!
I listen to Charles Goyette pretty much every morning on 1010 AM KXXT, our local Air America affiliate. Good show, for the most part, entertaining an informative, even I sometimes find I disagree with his politics. That's fine.
For a recurring joke the last couple of weeks, he plays the theme from The Greatest American Hero, then makes jokes about bubblegum pop singers turning into cable news pundits.
In case you're unsure (as is likely) what the joke is here, that theme song (the chorus goes: "Believe it or not, I'm walking on air / I never thought I could feel so free-ee-ee", etc., etc.) was performed by Joey Scarbury. Charles Joseph Scarborough, usually referred to as Joe Scarborough, is a former congressman and current right-wing commentator on MSNBC.
Goyette asserts that they're the same person and jokes endlessly about (him). But they're not. And it's embarrassing.
Scarbury, from California, was born in 1955, started recording in 1968 and gave up music in the early '80s to pursue a career in baseball. Scarborough, on the other hand, was born in 1963 in Atlanta and served as a US Representative from Florida from 1994 to 2001.
Stop it, Charles, stop it! You're embarrassing me.
For a recurring joke the last couple of weeks, he plays the theme from The Greatest American Hero, then makes jokes about bubblegum pop singers turning into cable news pundits.
In case you're unsure (as is likely) what the joke is here, that theme song (the chorus goes: "Believe it or not, I'm walking on air / I never thought I could feel so free-ee-ee", etc., etc.) was performed by Joey Scarbury. Charles Joseph Scarborough, usually referred to as Joe Scarborough, is a former congressman and current right-wing commentator on MSNBC.
Goyette asserts that they're the same person and jokes endlessly about (him). But they're not. And it's embarrassing.
Scarbury, from California, was born in 1955, started recording in 1968 and gave up music in the early '80s to pursue a career in baseball. Scarborough, on the other hand, was born in 1963 in Atlanta and served as a US Representative from Florida from 1994 to 2001.
Stop it, Charles, stop it! You're embarrassing me.
Friday, April 08, 2005
music: Uh-huh, that's right
We are as one and one is all we are.
Yeah, they're hyping the hell out of this thing. But it's pretty much equal to the hype, and that's rare. I haven't decided yet if it's better than #1, but it's certainly close.
Yeah, they're hyping the hell out of this thing. But it's pretty much equal to the hype, and that's rare. I haven't decided yet if it's better than #1, but it's certainly close.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
politics: The cons are getting desperate
Yes, I got a brand spanking new e-mail from Ken Mehlman today headlined 'Call Congress! Tell Them To Act Now On Social Security'. Yay. Apologies for the rambling -- what's below is more or less stream-of-consciouness sitting here trying desperately not to be bored at work.
Even two weeks ago, when I got their last Social Security missive, their poll numbers were highly selective, slanted, and misleading. But they're at the point now where there's really no way left to spin the poll results other than to pretty much lie about what they say.
And referring to the recent indoctrination sessions, Mehlman wrote, "These meetings left one clear impression -- Americans want Congress to work together to strengthen Social Security for future generations."
Wow. Talk about a mandate for pillaging our future (i.e., privatizing Social Security).
I mean, sheesh, that's something I can say I agree with. But I think there are vastly less expensive, corrupt and, well, overly complex, ways to do it.
This is a great quote: "60 percent of Americans support the concept of allowing workers to have the choice of a voluntary personal retirement account."
But shockingly absent from Mehlman's missive is the fact that 100% of American workers already have that choice!
Dork.
And, OK, here's one of the bullet points that, when I read it at first, parsed completely differently from the way it was intended: "Polls show an increasing number of Americans understand the problems confronting Social Security because of the President's and Republican Congress' leadership on the issue." Mehlman actually intends to say that because of the Resident's and Republican Congress's efforts, people understand the problems confronting social security. But when I read it, it seemed to say to me that the American people understood that there are problems with Social Security because of Republican leadership.
Ahem. I cop to my own misunderstanding cos I think it's closer to the truth.
Seniors, get on board. "President Bush has said he will not change benefits for Americans born before 1950. While nothing will change for current or near retirees and they will receive their benefits on time and in full, their involvement in this debate is about the kind of Social Security system they want their children and grandchildren to have." What kind of system do you think American seniors want their descendants to have? An untried system that in the best of circumstances will pour America's hard earned cash like an unclamped firehose into the vast underground tanks that are the bank accounts of brokers and brokerage firms, and in the worst circumstances, will lose trillions of dollars to bribery, graft, corruption and the complete unbalancing of the American economy from an uncontrollable inflow of investment capital? Or something essentially the same as our current, conservatively-run system with its modest costs and grounding in the full faith and credit of the US government? What have they come to trust?
Give it up, Ken. They're too smart to buy your monorail. Try Shelbyville.
I was going to stop there till I looked back at the last two bullet points (and by now I've pretty much reprinted the entire RNC e-mail, albeit chopped into small, bite-sized pieces so as not to induce the vomiting that might result from reading the whole thing at once):
Strangely, almost since its inception it's been taking in more than it's paid out, so there's (at least in theory) some lead time, unless the government decides to start defaulting on its debt ... which would be bad. Very, very bad.
And my last point is that these population changes are cyclical. The Republican's intimation seems to be that the upcoming work force is always going to be much smaller than the generation before it. But in order for this whole thing to be as big a crisis as they imply it is, we'd have to be on track for geometrically worsening negative population growth on top of geometrically expanding life expectancy, in which case all we'd have left would be a few thousand really, really old Americans within a couple hundred years. And that's just silly.
Population rates fluctuate. Yes, the ratio will look bad here in a couple of decades, for a couple of decades.
Anyway.
The upshot of all of this is that the personal accounts part of Mehlman's e-mail is such a brief mention, and so vague, and so ill-supported, even according to their own numbers, that they realize they're losing this one badly. And if they take this tack now (encourage a bipartisan effort to 'solve Social Security', then if the Democrats come to the table with a system that actually works, while the Republicans are still in power, they will still be able to lie to the American people, saying they have all the best ideas and the Democrats are either spineless 'me-too'ers or mindless naysayers, and the unwashed masses will buy it. And keep voting for the bastards.
The solution, to my mind, is to hold off the forces of the Sith through 2006, then bring to the first session a modest change to Social Security that (through the magic of projections and compound interest) will 'fix' it. And quit letting the Republicans take credit for things that actually turn out right.
Oh, and one last thing. It has not escaped my notice that Mehlman has stopped using the word crisis. It must not have been selling well.
Even two weeks ago, when I got their last Social Security missive, their poll numbers were highly selective, slanted, and misleading. But they're at the point now where there's really no way left to spin the poll results other than to pretty much lie about what they say.
And referring to the recent indoctrination sessions, Mehlman wrote, "These meetings left one clear impression -- Americans want Congress to work together to strengthen Social Security for future generations."
Wow. Talk about a mandate for pillaging our future (i.e., privatizing Social Security).
I mean, sheesh, that's something I can say I agree with. But I think there are vastly less expensive, corrupt and, well, overly complex, ways to do it.
This is a great quote: "60 percent of Americans support the concept of allowing workers to have the choice of a voluntary personal retirement account."
But shockingly absent from Mehlman's missive is the fact that 100% of American workers already have that choice!
Dork.
And, OK, here's one of the bullet points that, when I read it at first, parsed completely differently from the way it was intended: "Polls show an increasing number of Americans understand the problems confronting Social Security because of the President's and Republican Congress' leadership on the issue." Mehlman actually intends to say that because of the Resident's and Republican Congress's efforts, people understand the problems confronting social security. But when I read it, it seemed to say to me that the American people understood that there are problems with Social Security because of Republican leadership.
Ahem. I cop to my own misunderstanding cos I think it's closer to the truth.
Seniors, get on board. "President Bush has said he will not change benefits for Americans born before 1950. While nothing will change for current or near retirees and they will receive their benefits on time and in full, their involvement in this debate is about the kind of Social Security system they want their children and grandchildren to have." What kind of system do you think American seniors want their descendants to have? An untried system that in the best of circumstances will pour America's hard earned cash like an unclamped firehose into the vast underground tanks that are the bank accounts of brokers and brokerage firms, and in the worst circumstances, will lose trillions of dollars to bribery, graft, corruption and the complete unbalancing of the American economy from an uncontrollable inflow of investment capital? Or something essentially the same as our current, conservatively-run system with its modest costs and grounding in the full faith and credit of the US government? What have they come to trust?
Give it up, Ken. They're too smart to buy your monorail. Try Shelbyville.
I was going to stop there till I looked back at the last two bullet points (and by now I've pretty much reprinted the entire RNC e-mail, albeit chopped into small, bite-sized pieces so as not to induce the vomiting that might result from reading the whole thing at once):
- "Social Security faces very real demographic problems that cannot be solved with band-aid solutions like tax increases. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying for every one beneficiary. Today, there are about three, and when younger workers retire, there will only be two."
- "In 2017, Social Security will begin paying out more money than it receives in payroll taxes. The longer we wait to address the issue the more costly it becomes. Elected leaders have an obligation to address the issue today and not pass it on to our children and grandchildren."
Strangely, almost since its inception it's been taking in more than it's paid out, so there's (at least in theory) some lead time, unless the government decides to start defaulting on its debt ... which would be bad. Very, very bad.
And my last point is that these population changes are cyclical. The Republican's intimation seems to be that the upcoming work force is always going to be much smaller than the generation before it. But in order for this whole thing to be as big a crisis as they imply it is, we'd have to be on track for geometrically worsening negative population growth on top of geometrically expanding life expectancy, in which case all we'd have left would be a few thousand really, really old Americans within a couple hundred years. And that's just silly.
Population rates fluctuate. Yes, the ratio will look bad here in a couple of decades, for a couple of decades.
Anyway.
The upshot of all of this is that the personal accounts part of Mehlman's e-mail is such a brief mention, and so vague, and so ill-supported, even according to their own numbers, that they realize they're losing this one badly. And if they take this tack now (encourage a bipartisan effort to 'solve Social Security', then if the Democrats come to the table with a system that actually works, while the Republicans are still in power, they will still be able to lie to the American people, saying they have all the best ideas and the Democrats are either spineless 'me-too'ers or mindless naysayers, and the unwashed masses will buy it. And keep voting for the bastards.
The solution, to my mind, is to hold off the forces of the Sith through 2006, then bring to the first session a modest change to Social Security that (through the magic of projections and compound interest) will 'fix' it. And quit letting the Republicans take credit for things that actually turn out right.
Oh, and one last thing. It has not escaped my notice that Mehlman has stopped using the word crisis. It must not have been selling well.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
personal: It's really geeky of me
OK, I'll admit to being more than a little bit of an information geek. This would be why I went for a master's degree in library science -- I actually enjoy doing research.
So it's kind of exciting for me that inconjunction with Tartan Day, The Scotsman is opening up 133 years of searchable archives (1817 to 1950) for free for one day for anyone from the US or Canada who registers on the site tomorrow.
Plus, you can sign up for their heritage & culture newsletter for a chance to win an annual access pass to the archive.
Yeah, OK, it's ultra-wonky of me, but I'm already making a list of stuff to look up.
Just so you know.
So it's kind of exciting for me that inconjunction with Tartan Day, The Scotsman is opening up 133 years of searchable archives (1817 to 1950) for free for one day for anyone from the US or Canada who registers on the site tomorrow.
Plus, you can sign up for their heritage & culture newsletter for a chance to win an annual access pass to the archive.
Yeah, OK, it's ultra-wonky of me, but I'm already making a list of stuff to look up.
Just so you know.
politics: Unintentional irony
I was reading this commentary on a livejournal entry this morning and I literally had to read through it about three times before I convinced myself I was actually reading correctly.
In case you either don't want to follow the link or experience similar disbelief while reading it, let me sum up:
I don't care about politics because it gets me all stressed out and worked up. Besides, our country's f**ked because nobody cares about what happens to it anymore.
In other words, someone else should fix the country so I don't have to get all exercised.
I weep.
In case you either don't want to follow the link or experience similar disbelief while reading it, let me sum up:
I don't care about politics because it gets me all stressed out and worked up. Besides, our country's f**ked because nobody cares about what happens to it anymore.
In other words, someone else should fix the country so I don't have to get all exercised.
I weep.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
politics/religion: Good try, George!
President Bush tries, fails to visit Catholic church
Washington -- President Bush attended church for the first time in his life today to join worshippers in remembering Pope John Paul II. Unfamiliar with Christianity, however, he went to the wrong one.
"It's the thought that counts," said June Butterknife, a regular worshipper at St. John's Episcopal Church near the White House. "I mean, I've always called us 'Catholic Lite!'"
Butterknife continued, "For what it's worth, he looked really uncomfortable the whole time. And I'm sure that's because he realized his mistake the moment he walked in the door."
Observers reported that the president looked restless in his seat and even seemed to be doodling on his hand at one point. Walter Askew, another longtime member of the church, sat behind the president during the service.
"He took out a pocket knife at one point and looked like he was going to carve something in the pew in front of him," Askew said. "But Laura slapped his hand before he could do it."
Another worshipper, who asked not to be identified, reported overhearing Bush on his way out of the church say, "What? They don't have a (expletive) Pope? What the (expletive) are we doing here, then? I'm not going to another (expletive church). Nope, nuh-huh, no (expletive) way. God damn it!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)