![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 30th, 2008
I finally finished out the chords for "My Boyfriend," figuring that if I was going to write a song this stupid, I should at least actually finish it. Two chord intro, two chord bridge, four chord song, subtle as a brick and twice as smart. I can't even play through it without dissolving into giggles.
(Those of you who might remember a previous iteration of this song can throw out everything you knew about it musically, and about half the lyrics. This one has intro, outro, bridge, verses, structure - all that kinda crap it really doesn't deserve. ^_^ )
In less stupid material, this untitled song I've been working on is now called Moment of Decision, which I might change, but having a title at all means it's real. (As does I suppose the fact that I've been playing bits of it in public, but I added more to it today and now I think the pieces fit together pretty well and it's more song and less assemblage.) I'd call it The World Falls Down, but stupid David ("Elder God") Bowie still has a stupid lock on that title, at least in my head.
(Those of you who might remember a previous iteration of this song can throw out everything you knew about it musically, and about half the lyrics. This one has intro, outro, bridge, verses, structure - all that kinda crap it really doesn't deserve. ^_^ )
In less stupid material, this untitled song I've been working on is now called Moment of Decision, which I might change, but having a title at all means it's real. (As does I suppose the fact that I've been playing bits of it in public, but I added more to it today and now I think the pieces fit together pretty well and it's more song and less assemblage.) I'd call it The World Falls Down, but stupid David ("Elder God") Bowie still has a stupid lock on that title, at least in my head.
political spew
Jul. 30th, 2008 02:45 pmChicago is out of its freaking mind in asserting that the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision somehow doesn't apply to them, but hey, once you've got the whole "the law is whatever we want to say it is" thing going, why not? The Chicago Tribune, while wrong about the preamble, is honest in saying that they think the Second Amendment needs to be repealed, and while I disagree, I respect the honesty.
There were rump hearings on the Articles of Impeachment a few days ago. Watch in gory detail as the Washington Post follows the political class's standard in mocking those involved as crazies. See the same thing here, by different people, with regards to the Iraq War, the idea of Constitutional restraints on government, the rule of law, not voting for people whose positions you despise (not doing so being Stalinist), and the idea that primary challengers are anti-democratic. Daniel Larison over at The Atlantic has similar commentary with regards to the GOP.
Oh, and last week, I was floating (in person) the suspicion that the Democratic Party's "reformist" embrace-and-extension of Bush/GOP authoritarian executive powers of unlimited detention would be a special pseudocourt, similar to the FISA pseudocourt, to rubber-stamp essentially all Executive requests, in secret. The Washington Post editorialised for that over the weekend, calling for exactly that kind of secret court, with bonus points for "relaxed" rules, such as defendants having no fifth amendment rights. Constitutional issues with that? Fuck you, says the political class.
Meanwhile, over in reality, Great Britain has concluded, correctly, that United States assurances about its human rights behaviours can no longer be trusted. (Parliament's report here, in PDF.) In particular, US assurances about torture cannot be considered legitimate, and must be disregarded.
Greenwald also points out the stunning hypocrisy in condemning China over surveillance and voting for things like FISA and the PAA, and the insanity of the same with regards to other foreign countries about rule of law and privacy.
Pledge Now
Oh, finally, in filthy sack news, get a load of this Limbaugh transcript bemoaning how much smarter China is being by consuming lots more gas, buying more SUVs, and deciding pollution so thick you can't see through it is not actually harmful, and calling caring about such things returning to the "stone age." "Fuck the planet" is now a religion, I guess. Or, at very least, a political calling. He seems to be calling for gasoline subsidies - he lauds theirs:
Here, have a trivia quiz:
There were rump hearings on the Articles of Impeachment a few days ago. Watch in gory detail as the Washington Post follows the political class's standard in mocking those involved as crazies. See the same thing here, by different people, with regards to the Iraq War, the idea of Constitutional restraints on government, the rule of law, not voting for people whose positions you despise (not doing so being Stalinist), and the idea that primary challengers are anti-democratic. Daniel Larison over at The Atlantic has similar commentary with regards to the GOP.
Oh, and last week, I was floating (in person) the suspicion that the Democratic Party's "reformist" embrace-and-extension of Bush/GOP authoritarian executive powers of unlimited detention would be a special pseudocourt, similar to the FISA pseudocourt, to rubber-stamp essentially all Executive requests, in secret. The Washington Post editorialised for that over the weekend, calling for exactly that kind of secret court, with bonus points for "relaxed" rules, such as defendants having no fifth amendment rights. Constitutional issues with that? Fuck you, says the political class.
Meanwhile, over in reality, Great Britain has concluded, correctly, that United States assurances about its human rights behaviours can no longer be trusted. (Parliament's report here, in PDF.) In particular, US assurances about torture cannot be considered legitimate, and must be disregarded.
Greenwald also points out the stunning hypocrisy in condemning China over surveillance and voting for things like FISA and the PAA, and the insanity of the same with regards to other foreign countries about rule of law and privacy.
Pledge Now
Oh, finally, in filthy sack news, get a load of this Limbaugh transcript bemoaning how much smarter China is being by consuming lots more gas, buying more SUVs, and deciding pollution so thick you can't see through it is not actually harmful, and calling caring about such things returning to the "stone age." "Fuck the planet" is now a religion, I guess. Or, at very least, a political calling. He seems to be calling for gasoline subsidies - he lauds theirs:
See, the ChiComs need their economy growing. They need people driving around, moving around. They need people to be able to afford fuel, so they're subsidizing fuel... They're buying their gasoline for them, because they need an economy. Know what energy means to this, the whole subject of economic growth. So meanwhile, the ChiComs, a country certainly growing, certainly on the rise, but it ain't the United States of America. How does it make you feel that Zhang Linsen has a big Hummer with nine speakers blaring as he pulls out into a four-lane road with so much smog he basically can't see the car in front of him, and you are trading in all of your cars and trying to go out and find basically a lawn mower.Personally - I dunno about you, but personally - I feel pretty fucking good that there's not so much crap in the air that I can't see.
Here, have a trivia quiz:
Congratulations! You scored 20 correct out of 21!
Average score: 12 |
oh, tasty!
Jul. 30th, 2008 08:14 pmThis is fun:
( ...oh, you're in trouble now... )
Warp Drive Engine Would Travel Faster Than LightThe only downside is that there's no idea yet about how to do the engineering. Oh, and, you need a star to power it. Hm...
Eric Bland, Discovery News
July 28, 2008 -- It is possible to travel faster than light. You just wouldn't travel faster than light.
Seems strange, but by manipulating extra dimensions with astronomical amounts of energy, two Baylor University physicists have outlined how a faster-than-light engine, or warp drive, could be created that would bend but not break the laws of physics. "We think we can create an effective warp drive, based on general relatively and string theory," said Gerald Cleaver, coauthor of the paper that recently appeared on the preprint server ArXiv.org
( ...oh, you're in trouble now... )
