The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
-George Washington-
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
One of the reasons I've shied away from Libertarianism.
Well, I'm sure they would be very proud of him now.
Here's the part that really gets me, though (italics mine).
The teen then described how he walked into the kitchen, shot his dad three times in the back, then shot his mother, 46-year-old Penny Brighton, while she began to run away, police said in the report. Brighton pleaded not guilty after being charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Brighton faces a possible sentence of life in prison if convicted.
So we get to spend time and money proving in court that he's guilty of what he just confessed to. I'm not knocking the system- it's all him. What a wad.
I was standing at the very edge of the stage, as close to the performer as you could get. He was only a few feet above me, so I could watch his movements very closely. Turning around to look at the enrapt audience, I saw that no less than half of them were staring at him with their mouths hanging wide open in sheer amazement. I absolutely understood.
As Stanley Jordan fits most comfortably in jazz circles, I was stunned to see his name listed in the Launchpad's upcoming artist list. At the time I'd been in the Duke City for about 7 or 8 years, and never had a reason to go to the mainly punk downtown club. Getting there, I found pretty much what I had expected; bare walls, a small, bare stage tucked into a corner with absolutely no backstage area, and a bar. Upstairs had pool tables, but was no less spartan. Well, some of the finest shows I've ever seen have been in such rattraps, so this only gave me one thought - "I can get pretty damn close to the action here."
Forty minutes after showtime the only thought I had was "Is Stanley Jordan going to show up? I knew this was too good to be true." He popped in the back door , adjacent to the stage and easily accessible by anyone, about five minutes later, looking a bit harried. Driving alone from Colorado can be a bitch, I guess.
And I mean alone. He pulled up to the back door, unloaded his own equipment, and went to work setting it up while we watched and experienced a renewed interest in the bar. I determined where he was setting himself up on the stage and stood directly in front of it, and waited. Another half hour, and he stood in front of us with a couple guitars, a few amps, and his own little mixing board on a little mixing board stand. No band and tons of empty space.
And he proceeded to blow our fucking minds. One may argue that other players are as good or even better than Stanley, but there is no one, no one, that plays like him.
Stanley makes exclusive use of the tapping technique invented by Jimmie Webster (most folks say) and popularized by Eddie Van Halen, Steve Hackett, and Michael Hedges among others. While most rock guitarists use the technique to play faster, Stanley uses it to elevate the instrument's capabilities. Using this technique as he does, he not only gets every finger on both hands involved, but he enables the instrument to create chords and melody at the same time.
To illustrate this, I'm going to go into new ground here and post a video. This is because you really, really, need to see this to understand how incredible it is. I really can't explain it to you. Also, I'm holding out on you a little, as this video shows a guitarist doing something that I, in all my extensive audience experience, have never seen anyone else do. The song is a familiar one - I'm certain you know it- and it is just past three minutes into the song that my point should be made for me (if it hasn't been already by that time), and the point is that no discussion of great guitarists or of technically astounding musicians of any type is complete without the name Stanley Jordan.
See my point? I have been listening to Stanley a bit more lately, since I have plans to see him perform again soon. While the solo performance was great, I'm hoping for a full band this time, simply because the band on this underground recording I have is astounding (I wish I knew who they were, especially the guy on violin, although there's a pretty wicked pianist here as well). This is an audience recording, but the best kind. The band is right up front, every instrument is clear and in good proportion, and the highs and lows are all present and accounted for. You can still hear the audience around the microphone, though. They aren't obnoxious (in fact, they're a pretty fun crowd who is into the music, it seems) but they are there. In this way these type of audience recordings are my favorite undergrounds, because I hear everything as if I were in the audience.
The song is called Footprints and it comes from the New Potato Cafe' in Nederland, Co. on June 8, 1997. I'm going to educatedly guess that this place isn't usually a punk club.
Also, to help you understand the way we felt while standing in the audience at the Launchpad (why would a punk club have chairs, after all?) that evening, here's a short solo cut from the Spectrum Club in Montreal sometime in July, 1985. It's a jaunty little blues piece called Fun Dance. While you listen to it, remind yourself that this is one man with one guitar, and that's all.
I was brought up to not say "nigger". There was no question that neither the word nor the intention were welcome in my parent's home. I didn't really need to have that drilled into me, either, since I had no desire to use the word. Although there were no black people in the little country town I grew up in, my italian/cherokee combo gave me the darkest skin in school, so I got to be the "nigger". I know exactly, intimately, the feeling of isolation that this word can bring.
I don't care for racism at all. As a result, I never thought much of the "black people can say it, but white people cannot" chain of logic. There is no way I can think about it without considering it racist as well. After all, "white people can sit under this tree, black people cannot" is racist, right? "White guys can wolf-whistle at white women, black guys cannot" is certainly racist. In fact, any time that one racial group says that they are allowed an activity that others are not allowed only because of their race, it is racism, pure and simple.
Now, I'm obviously not stumping for the right of whites to say "nigger." They have no such right. I simply never understood why black people wanted to. It never seemed "empowering" to me. In fact, if your idea of "empowerment" is to sound like a Klan member that would just as soon have you dangling from a tree, then I would say you have some serious issues.
More than that, though, I question the sincerity of any black person who says "nigger" and complains about white people being racist. ANYONE can be racist. Anyone of any color and any background. White folks don't have an exclusive on racism. We've certainly done the most to perfect it, but we're not the sole perpetrators.
So I'm glad to see black people standing up and saying "Enough! Let's be done with this damn word already! Save it for Uncle Tom's Cabin and Blazing Saddles! It's just not helping anything." (Of course, I'm the only one to literally say those words, but those words convey the feeling that these people's actions gave me.)
Maybe now we can be rid of this word and all the words like it. Eventually, maybe the intentions that spawn such words will go. This isn't people deciding how others can talk, it's people deciding what they are willing to listen to, and if people won't listen to comedians, actors, rappers, or anyone else that uses slurs, even if they are "taking the slur back", then perhaps people who want an audience will come to the conclusion that they are not being edgy, topical, and hip. Maybe they'll realize that they are offending and alienating those same people that they seek to identify with.
Maybe this will lead to a small victory against one of society's biggest evils.
So there I was in the Grand Jury room this morning, listening to testimony. After so many times of listening to the same type of cases with almost identical testimony, it's easy to start paying more attention to the crossword puzzle than the details. This wasn't a typical trafficking case, however, as one word jumped out at me.
"Hashish"
Usually, the locals are selling pot, crack, powdered coke, or heroin. Among the pharmaceuticals this guy purveyed, however, was hash. Very interesting, considering the fact that I haven't seen a speck of hash since I moved here, and several years before.
So the officer told us all abouit how he found the guy, and how they established a need to search, and what they found. The Assistant D.A. asked him the usual questions - where it occurred, what time, did he field test the drugs, were the quantities found consistent with selling, etc. Then as always, he turned to the panel and asked if we had any questions.
I didn't mean to say it. Some gremlin within me rose up, took control of my mouth, and made me ask.
"Did he say where he got the hash???"
I swear, I have never been in a quieter room in my life.
We've been hearing a lot about celebrity justice this past year, probably because so many celebrities are appearing before a bench these days. While there are opinions flying around like gulls over a garbage scow, one thing everyone seems to agree on is the fact that it just isn't fair. Not fair at all.
What's interesting, however, is the difference in opinion about exactly what isn't fair about it. Even more interesting is the fact that the difference isn't related to who is speaking as much as it's related to whom they're speaking ABOUT.
After the O.J. trial, it was on everyone's lips - you don't go to jail if you're rich and famous. It was the same after the Michael Jackson trial. Ditto Robert Blake.
And when Paris Hilton was released early in the same fashion in which many non-celebs in the same situation were released, the public outcry was quite palpable. The explanation that the situation was not unusual or particular to celebrities fell upon a deaf nation. Everyone expected her to serve her full term, and by God, they'd bitch and whine until she did. And the same goes for that Lindsey Lohan scofflaw, as well. Nichole Ritchie, no different.
I have no problem with that. Send 'em up the river. I'm just wondering why it should be different for Michael Vick.
Everywhere I go, I hear that he's only being prosecuted - some say "persecuted" - because he's rich and famous. I've been hearing it from the beginning. Never mind that his actions were against the law, not to mention any imaginable concept of decent human behavior. Never mind that he CONFESSED. They're only going after him because he's a famous football player.
Why the difference? Am I supposed to think that District Attorneys and Judges are big Paris Hilton fans, but don't care so much for sports figures like Vick and Kobe Bryant? None of them watch football or basketball, but would hate to see the next Lindsey Lohan film released late?
Or could it be that people have a vastly different standard for the celebrities that they like? Could it be that Americans don't care as much about the objectivities of the law as much as they like to pretend? Of course it could, and it's far from impressive.
Even more infuriating are the people who say "Well, [another sports figure] did [insert crime here] and only got [light sentence] so why should we go after Vick?
Well, by that logic, why go after anybody? If someone can show that one person got away with breaking a law, shouldn't everyone? After all, if one person got a light sentence, then there is no justice, and why should we pretend? It would be unfair to hold one person accountable for his actions if anyone else has gotten off prior to this, isn't it? That's how the argument seems to go.
And we ALL know that only one party's politicians are ever arrested. If it was the OTHER party, no one would say anything. Remember that guy from the other party who did such and such back in 1976 and got away with it? Obviously, every single person in the world who is mad at our guy knows about the other guy and approves. Hypocrites.
Meanwhile, I tend to think that the mistakes of the past may be beyond fixing, but their repetition can be easily avoided. In other words, if the law isn't being prosecuted properly in regard to celebs, there can be a point where that changes. Just because so-and-so got off five years ago in one state, it does not follow that someone else should get off for a crime committed in another. It is perfectly valid to say "Enough is enough. From now on, we do it right." We don't have to wait until it's someone unpopular confessing to a crime. We can choose to do things right any time we want. If we want, that is. We have to actually care about the law being obeyed by both those we like and those we don't.
But the lamest, worst of the lot is right here. This is pathetic excuse-making at it's worst.
First off, I have to ask why anyone watches The View. If any women reading this do watch the view, I sure hope you've never put men down for watching sports, Baywatch or the Three Stooges, because the fact that The View survives is ample proof that men aren't alone in watching utterly stupid, mindless television. However, I digress.
On her first show, and no doubt wanting to prove that she can be as controversial as Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg tells us that the conviction is unfair because Vick was doing something that comes from his southern U.S. culture.
Well, what else did I see in the news today that reflects southern U.S. culture? How about the racist slogans and swastikas that were burned into the lawns at a golf course in S. Carolina? How about nooses hanging from trees, and justice only for white people? What would Whoopie have to say about these "southern cultural traditions"?
I mean, sure, racism is wrong, and most of us know it is. Just like we know that training dogs to tear each other to ribbons and killing them tortuously if they fail is wrong. But we can make excuses for culture, right? How many people living in the area that Vick grew up in feel that wearing a white hood and putting a black neck in one of those nooses is a valid cultural statement?
Culture can be an interesting thing, but many people feel that it should be immutable, which I disagree with. I applauded when the state of New Mexico finally outlawed cockfighting, despite the fact that it is part of "Mexican culture." We're close enough to Mexico for those sad sucks to take a road trip for their blood sport. Cultures have been evolving since the first culture began. They do that because mores and standards change over time. If you tell me that you must be allowed to do something for no other reason than the fact that your granfather did it, I simply will not consider your argument valid enough to consider as such. It's really that simple. Show me how your tradition makes sense in our culture today, or how no one is harmed by it. Don't just tell me, "That's our culture", because when it comes to stuff like racism, animal torture, female genital mutilation, or forcing teenage girls to be their cousin's third wife, among other things, I simply don't respect or care about it. This is our culture, and it changes all the time. Jim Crow was part of our culture, and isn't anymore. Keeping women out of academia and the workplace was part of our culture, and isn't anymore. Voting rights for men only, etc., yada yada yada.
So please, Whoopie, spare me the bullshit about culture. Unless you're willing to stand up in defense of cross - burnings, segregation, and racially tainted justice as results of "southern culture", you really should shut the fuck up and let those elected to apply the law do so. We'll save the outrage for when someone is convicted on shoddy evidence without a confession. At least, I will. And I don't think I'l be standing up for someone rich and famous when that happens.
Boy, the ad hominem arguments are flying around this week. They're all in response to this, John Edwards' speech in which he said that as President, he would ask Americans to switch to more fuel-economical cars. When asked if that meant people "sacrificing" their SUVs, he said "yes".
From right-wind Blogovia's response (and don't miss Marco's well-considered comment!), you'd think he tried to choose Hugo Chavez as a running mate.
There is outrage. People are pointing out how "hypocritical" it is for a guy with a big house to criticize those that drive gas-guzzlers. They're picking on his house, his jet, and, for some very (I'm sure) bizarre reason, his haircut. I've noticed, however, that no one is tackling the actual argument that he makes about fuel consumption. One might think that they aren't able to.
Well, I see some logical problems with their arguments against it, and being the bullshit filter that I am, I'll see if I can strain some of it out for you.
First, his house. Sure, it's big. It's a mansion. I dare say that if any of the conservatives that put him down for living there had worked hard to build a successful law practice (which they will also gladly put down as being based on "frivolous lawsuits" although I'm still waiting to see an actual examples of research on that claim) and made enough money to get a mansion like that, they would. Thus, I suspect a hint of jealous hypocrisy in this particular critique. However, that's not the whole point.
The whole point is that while Edwards' mansion might - I say might -have a larger carbon footprint than one SUV, it will not even come CLOSE to ALL of them. Let's be real here. We should all be allowed to waste gas because the guy suggesting we all try to cut back is living in a big house that cannot, even if filled with styrofoam and lit on fire, come close to polluting as much as millions of vehicles? And the people who argue thus say that they are providing perspective?
Exactly what sacrifice is being asked for here? That everyone walk? No. That everyone carpool? No. Bikes? No. Public transport? No. None of these are new ideas, anyway. People were doing them voluntarily in the 70s when we had that energy crisis, and gas prices shot up. You know, like they have been for the past three years.
No, Edwards is instead suggesting that we try to drive more fuel-economical vehicles. Then, we'd use less gas and create less pollution. We'd also save money. We'd spend less to get to the places we want to go. Less money in the tank, more in the bank.
Well, how dare that bastard try to make us sacrifice that way?
So while "conservatives" will tell us that we need to sacrifice our right to privacy, they draw the line at suggestions that we spend less on fossil fuels, even if it means traveling just as much as we did before. Or even more, depending on the situation.
Another argument is against the idea that we are the world's bigest polluters. "What about China? What about India? They each pollute about the same as we do! Ever heard of those countries?"
Well, yes, I have. Ever compared our population to theirs? Here's what I just looked up:
U.S. 302,746,657
India 1,129,866,154
China 1,319,175,335 It changed twice just while I was jotting the number down.
Not really equal, is it? This means that if we pollute anywhere near what either of these countries do - and we do- then we are far, far filthier per capita than either of these countries. India has almost a billion more people than we do. China has over a billion people more than us. But we're going to wait for them to clean up their acts first?
Sounds, I don't know, kind of mind-numbingly arrogant and selfish, doesn't it?
But then again, what do you want from people who support a war as long as the tax cuts mean they don't have to pay for it? Let China buy up all of the debt, we'll be okay. Our children wil be fucked, but we're all about us, aren't we? Let them form their own world with whatever we leave behind.
Edwards also said that he'd like to stop the overseas manufacture of the weapons and ammunition that our soldiers are using, saying that anything used to defend America should be made in America by, oh, I don't know, Americans? You'd think that would be something that righties could agree with. And I'm sure they do, which is why they aren't saying anything about it. Zero. Cuts into the ad hominems when he says something like that, it does.
Now, I drive an old Bronco II, not a Prius. I'm not currently in the financial situation to buy a new vehicle, although I certainly wouldn't mind a Prius. I have, however, changed the way I drive.
I moved to a job in an office, instead of outside sales. Leaving the old job was not exactly my choice, but avoiding outside sales when I looked for a new one was.
I rarely "run out" to pick something up or run an errand. I save my errands for the weekend as much as possible, and plan an efficient route. And I don't take unneccessary trips. Sure, I'll go out for fun - I'm not advocating hermitage. But the fact is that last year at this time, I was burning through 1 1/2 tanks of gas every week. Now I might burn that much in a month. While I was spending $300.00 a month on gas, I am now spending about $70.00.
I think I can handle making that kind of sacrifice.
Your milage may vary, of course (you had to know that was coming!) but I doubt that there is anybody who couldn't think a little about their habits, and find sufficient financial motive to make some tweaks.
I just can't, for the life of me, understand why someone would lay down for the reduction of their 4th Amendment rights, allow the Executive branch to claim far more power than they were ever entitled to by law, but take a stand for their right to be utterly wasteful with their own money and everyone's breathing air. Why not just set your money on fire and inhale deeply?
The thing is, some kind of sacrifice is inevitable. A stitch, in time, saves nine after all. A small "sacrifice" for prevention can offset a large sacrifice for solution.
"I think the danger is not that authority will collapse, but that, finally, in order to preserve itself, it [established authority] will become very repressive. Law and order is not a phony issue, not just an excuse for the Right to go further right.
Obviously it is a problem in a city like New York where people feel very unsafe. One of the things you expect from society when you surrender your rights as an individual is safety and a comfortable material life. As soon as society cannot guarantee safety, people eventually will become very disturbed and they may make some extremely irrational choices, leaning toward more authority of a much tougher kind.
I don't think people can indefinitely tolerate the kind of emotional uncertainty that being unsafe creates."
Stanley Kubrick, 1971
When I read this quote, I immediately thought of those who tell us that the Constitution doesn't count anymore because we're living in a different world now. There are those who are eager to toss away their civil liberties - which is somehow now a "leftie" thing, rather than the conservative platform plank it's supposed to be - because "9/11 changed everything." While it is true that the founding fathers didn't have to worry about Al Queda, they did have to worry about the British, other countries that may try to take advantage of a fledgling nation, and of course the locals that were starting to wake up to what their future looked like (and who may have called the founding fathers and those that followed "terrorists" if they'd had such a word then). Are these people all that different from Al Queda just because their motives are different, and some of their tactics?
I also think about the people who say that the 2nd Amendment does not matter because "we no longer have to worry about bears." That's a laugh for me, since we have bears meandering into backyards and hospitals where I live. In general, though, most Americans don't worry about bears, but have something far more violent and sinister to beware of - their fellow Americans. The cops can't be everywhere, and some of them can't be trusted anymore than the crackheads. But let's not forget why we were given the right to bear arms - Stanley illustrates that above, and the danger of repression never goes away, especially when one third of the country is still pissing it's own pants over the events of six years ago.
The biggest laugh is the fact that on the whole, it is those that deride the educational system in America that consider themselves to be too smart to learn the lessons of history. So they'll kid themselves into thinking that their situation is unique in all of human history, and that no one before them has faced the challenges that they face. But if one reads some history, one sees that nothing substantially original has happened in a very long time.
