I just listened to the new Muse release "United States of Eurasia." The concept- political. Interesting. New. The United States must conquer all the territory from the west coast of Europe to east coast of Korea in order to secure its access to natural resources.
The sound- imagine Queen harmonies over technical beats and paranoid violins. The resulting mix pulls together so many different sounds that even Girltalk would have nothing to add to it. The letdown- for a year, Matt Belamy has been talking about how he has been listening to middle eastern and Mediterranean music for the entire year leading up to this album, and this track is a pretty obvious reflection of that.
The problem? The lead line in the song that is supposed to showcase this new set of influences is the most clichéd representation of middle eastern music that has ever existed in western pop culture. If Bellamy had not actually adopted music from the middle east as an artist influenc and just watched the movie Lawrence of Arabia before he recorded this track, I would not be able to tell the difference. I almost had to laugh when I heard this string arrangement, since even without Bellamy's hyping up that he was going to mix Middle Eastern tunes into the new song, the result stands on its own as a dissapointing attempt to sound exotic. It would be like if Muse told their fans they had been "getting really heavy into Native American music" only to materialize in Bellamy yelling WOO WOO WOO WOO HEY O WATA over the track.
The highpoint of this song- the vocal harmonies. Now here is an influence that they really follow through on- Queen. Multilayered, all three singing several parts- this is the way to harmonize. Very similar to the vocals on the track Assassin on Black Holes and Revelations. My issue with Assassin was always that the vocals were drowned out by an overbearing guitar riff, but this track suffers from no such defect. The harmonies are front and center- they are by far the best part of the song. I can only hope more tracks on The Resistance take Muse's experimentation with Queen-esque melodies even further.
It's a good thing that this is not the single. Although this is the first song to debut off the new album, the first single will be a track called "Uprising." I have no idea what Uprising sounds like, but it has to be better. Just has to.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Halloween + Pedophiles = ?
Missouri just passed a new state law requiring convicted sex offenders to remain in their homes on Halloween to avoid potentially dangerous interaction with children. The law prohibits “all Halloween-related contact with children” and allows sexual offenders to leave their homes from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. only if they have “just cause.”
But the Judge allowed two provisions to stand, requiring sexual offenders to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence” and to turn off any porch lights.
The state of Maryland recently sent the same signs to 1,200 convicted sex offenders and mandated that they be placed outside to discourage pedophile-children contact.
I just have to ask one thing. Seriously? First of all, these signs are some serious low hanging fruit. If state governments are really going to do the trick, shouldn't they be stationing police officers outside the homes of these supposedly dangerous individuals? These efforts are obviously the states' attempt to circumvent this problem, by creating public suspicion of these individuals. This is a case of state-sponsored ostricization. But I guess it makes sense; you wouldn't dangle a piece of meat in front of a starving dog, nor would you dangle a piece of meat in front of a pedophile, especially if that piece of meat was a small child looking to score some candy at any cost.
But the Judge allowed two provisions to stand, requiring sexual offenders to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence” and to turn off any porch lights.
The state of Maryland recently sent the same signs to 1,200 convicted sex offenders and mandated that they be placed outside to discourage pedophile-children contact.
I just have to ask one thing. Seriously? First of all, these signs are some serious low hanging fruit. If state governments are really going to do the trick, shouldn't they be stationing police officers outside the homes of these supposedly dangerous individuals? These efforts are obviously the states' attempt to circumvent this problem, by creating public suspicion of these individuals. This is a case of state-sponsored ostricization. But I guess it makes sense; you wouldn't dangle a piece of meat in front of a starving dog, nor would you dangle a piece of meat in front of a pedophile, especially if that piece of meat was a small child looking to score some candy at any cost.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Dynamite
Dynamite is dangerous. It is much more dangerous however, when tied to an arrow and shot from a bow. This is the best way to use dynamite. Suck it Alfred Nobel. Sweet name though.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Barack Obama's Evil Plan
As everyone knows, Barack Obama is a smart guy. However, he also appears to be nice guy. Let's give the people health care! Let's stop those greedy corporate whores from sucking our economy dry! These benign intentions have always made me suspicious. But now the genius inside Barack is finally doing what Sarah Palin would describe as "rearing its head."
Tonight, Barack Obama suggested a great new way to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its nuclear facilities. He suggested that the United States and its allies should prevent Iran from importing gasoline. While Iran has vast reserves of oil and a national infrastructure that practically revolves around petroleum extraction, its refinery capabilities have diminished severely in recent decades. Therefore, Iran requires massive imports of foreign-refined gasoline for its national economy to function. Here's where the genius comes in.
Theoretically, the U.S. and its allies could organize a ban among gasoline exporting nations to block Iranian access to fuel. If organized effectively, this would bring the production of crude oil to a halt; but more importantly, it would cripple the national economy and send shockwaves through ruling circles in Iran. Key Iranian politicians might finally reconsider the benefits of pursuing nuclear development policies, and a great threat to civilization might be averted.
If any version of this blockade is going to work, it will require Russia's participation. And just in case you've been living under the ground for the past 7 years, Russia is unlikely to fall in line with any initiative aimed at augmenting the influence of the West, especially if that influence is directed at a state with which Russia shares arms contracts, energy infrastructure, and a burning hatred for the United States.
There is also a possibility that support from other middle eastern nations would undercut the effectiveness of a blockade against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the nation in possession of the world's largest oil reserves as well as a relationship with the West that is parasitic and temporary at best, is also unlikely to sacrifice petro-dollars to make a statement against Iran's nuclear aspirations. The one dynamic that does increase the West's chances of success is wide-spread fear that a nuclear Iran would pose to other middle eastern nations. Saudi Arabia's goal is to protect itself, and if that means collaborating with the U.S. to prevent Iran from gaining regional hegemony, then it probably will. However, something as drastic as Barack Obama's plan to cripple the national economy has the ulterior possibility of estranging these very nations whose support is most crucial to making sanctions work effectively.
The most drastic outcome of this proposed blockade would be a contestation of Ayatollah Khomeini's government through a popular uprising, but that would require such complete devastation of the Iranian economy that living conditions would be dangerously degraded. But this is exactly the kind of structural change in Iran that American leaders desire most. Barack Obama's intention to affect such a change is the logical, and probable conclusion of the West's efforts to mitigate Iran's belligerent actions on the international stage.
Barack has the right idea. Why spend billions of American dollars or waste any more American lives intervening in the middle east's regional affairs? John McCain wants to continue Bush's idiotic attempt to perform a democratic makeover on the middle east. But the slumber party's over girls; it's time to get serious. Just cut Iran's access to fuel, and see what happens. A little energy shortage, a little industrial standstill and economic collapse, and boom! An imploded Iran. This is why Obama has my vote, so he can set that evil genius to work for the good of the American people.
Tonight, Barack Obama suggested a great new way to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its nuclear facilities. He suggested that the United States and its allies should prevent Iran from importing gasoline. While Iran has vast reserves of oil and a national infrastructure that practically revolves around petroleum extraction, its refinery capabilities have diminished severely in recent decades. Therefore, Iran requires massive imports of foreign-refined gasoline for its national economy to function. Here's where the genius comes in.
Theoretically, the U.S. and its allies could organize a ban among gasoline exporting nations to block Iranian access to fuel. If organized effectively, this would bring the production of crude oil to a halt; but more importantly, it would cripple the national economy and send shockwaves through ruling circles in Iran. Key Iranian politicians might finally reconsider the benefits of pursuing nuclear development policies, and a great threat to civilization might be averted.
If any version of this blockade is going to work, it will require Russia's participation. And just in case you've been living under the ground for the past 7 years, Russia is unlikely to fall in line with any initiative aimed at augmenting the influence of the West, especially if that influence is directed at a state with which Russia shares arms contracts, energy infrastructure, and a burning hatred for the United States.
There is also a possibility that support from other middle eastern nations would undercut the effectiveness of a blockade against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the nation in possession of the world's largest oil reserves as well as a relationship with the West that is parasitic and temporary at best, is also unlikely to sacrifice petro-dollars to make a statement against Iran's nuclear aspirations. The one dynamic that does increase the West's chances of success is wide-spread fear that a nuclear Iran would pose to other middle eastern nations. Saudi Arabia's goal is to protect itself, and if that means collaborating with the U.S. to prevent Iran from gaining regional hegemony, then it probably will. However, something as drastic as Barack Obama's plan to cripple the national economy has the ulterior possibility of estranging these very nations whose support is most crucial to making sanctions work effectively.
The most drastic outcome of this proposed blockade would be a contestation of Ayatollah Khomeini's government through a popular uprising, but that would require such complete devastation of the Iranian economy that living conditions would be dangerously degraded. But this is exactly the kind of structural change in Iran that American leaders desire most. Barack Obama's intention to affect such a change is the logical, and probable conclusion of the West's efforts to mitigate Iran's belligerent actions on the international stage.
Barack has the right idea. Why spend billions of American dollars or waste any more American lives intervening in the middle east's regional affairs? John McCain wants to continue Bush's idiotic attempt to perform a democratic makeover on the middle east. But the slumber party's over girls; it's time to get serious. Just cut Iran's access to fuel, and see what happens. A little energy shortage, a little industrial standstill and economic collapse, and boom! An imploded Iran. This is why Obama has my vote, so he can set that evil genius to work for the good of the American people.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Constitution + Marijuana = ?
Something big has just happened in the fight over medical marijuana in California. Supporters of California's right to legalize weed for medical purposes have just advanced a new theory that has started to gain legal ground. This new theory is that the federal government's efforts to undermine California's legalization policies are in violation of the 10th Amendment, which states that rights not given to the federal government are delegated to the states and the people. Since the federal government routinely harasses the physicians who prescribe weed and raid medical marijuana facilities in California, they are potentially undermining California's constitutional right to pass and enforce its own laws.
The major issue here surrounds California's system of regulation, which relies on doctor's recommendations, identification cards and medicinal providers to distinguish between medical and recreational users. By targeting and intimidating the physicians in this system, the U.S. Government is hindering California in the administration of its state laws, which is at least arguably a violation of the 10th amendment.
There have been a ton of constitutional arguments advanced before against the Controlled Substances Act, which comprehensively criminalized most recreational drugs in the U.S. However, this 10th amendment theory is one of the only theories to survive a motion to dismiss in district court.
Hopefully this trial is going somewhere!!!!!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Schools Generally Required to Allow GSA
A federal judge ruled that Okeechobee High School in Florida had to allow the establishment of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club because the Okeechobee County school district was governed by the federal Equal Access Act.
"That law bars federally funded secondary schools from denying equal access to student non-curricular clubs on the basis of religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the club members' speech."
This decision seems like the natural result of social progress. We live in a diverse country whose government and public institutions don't discriminate on the basis of differences that people have a legitimate and inalienable right to hold. To do otherwise would inevitably lead to the promotion of some values, viewpoints, subjective beliefs over others. This is also the basis of oppression at the hands of those temporally in powerful. That's why we have the first amendment in the first place, to ensure that people can live, think, and act in way that they choose for themselves.
What I find interesting about this case is the rational behind denying these students from founding a Gay-Straight Alliance. The school district argued that allowing a GSA to form would be, "contrary to its abstinence-only education program." Here's where the school district started to fuck up. They claimed that allowing a GSA would under their attempt to "promote monogamous relationships in the context of marriage." It's not every day that conservatives do such a great job making themselves sound retarded that no additional work is required of me.
Basically, the District refused to allow the GSA's establishment on the grounds that it would promote homosexuality, which in turn would promote homosexual behavior, which would then in turn promote homosexual sex. I must say, these are some impressive logic jumps for people who thought that abstinence-only eduction was a good idea in the first place. I would hope at this point people would be less likely to rely on that backwards type of thinking, but at least the judge, whose authority makes all the difference, had more sense than that.
Judge Moore said the district "has not clarified how dialogue promoting tolerance towards non-homosexual individuals is antithetical to principles of abstinence." He didn't go too far though. "The judge indicated that the school district's concern about the "premature sexualization" of adolescents was legitimate, but he doubted that the GSA was intended to promote that. The district could take steps to ensure that the club avoided sex education topics "reserved for instruction by qualified teachers in a classroom environment."
What is with all this "premature sexualization" stuff? On the one hand, it could be just another piece of conservative rhetoric designed as a powerful and legitimate sounding way of defending subjective, ideology-inspired beliefs, like homophobia. But look closely at this phrase. "Sexualization?" Teaching straight people that gay people exist is presupposed to "sexualize" them somehow? I guess that's true, insofar as this is an issue of sexual orientation. But at its most basic, this term is a coded way of communicating disgust for homosexuality and is part of an attempted pushback against the gradual (and inevitable) purging of these outdated modes of tought from mainstream society. And what is the first part of this phrase intended to convey? That to the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance would be introducing the majority of high school these students to the idea of homosexuality? Something tells me that these students are more familiar with the idea that not everyone is attracted to the same sex than these administrators are aware. Granted we went against reason and our better judgement and assumed, as these educators do, that their students didn't know what homosexuality was, when would be the appropriate time to make them aware of this?
Quotes from here.
"That law bars federally funded secondary schools from denying equal access to student non-curricular clubs on the basis of religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the club members' speech."
This decision seems like the natural result of social progress. We live in a diverse country whose government and public institutions don't discriminate on the basis of differences that people have a legitimate and inalienable right to hold. To do otherwise would inevitably lead to the promotion of some values, viewpoints, subjective beliefs over others. This is also the basis of oppression at the hands of those temporally in powerful. That's why we have the first amendment in the first place, to ensure that people can live, think, and act in way that they choose for themselves.
What I find interesting about this case is the rational behind denying these students from founding a Gay-Straight Alliance. The school district argued that allowing a GSA to form would be, "contrary to its abstinence-only education program." Here's where the school district started to fuck up. They claimed that allowing a GSA would under their attempt to "promote monogamous relationships in the context of marriage." It's not every day that conservatives do such a great job making themselves sound retarded that no additional work is required of me.
Basically, the District refused to allow the GSA's establishment on the grounds that it would promote homosexuality, which in turn would promote homosexual behavior, which would then in turn promote homosexual sex. I must say, these are some impressive logic jumps for people who thought that abstinence-only eduction was a good idea in the first place. I would hope at this point people would be less likely to rely on that backwards type of thinking, but at least the judge, whose authority makes all the difference, had more sense than that.
Judge Moore said the district "has not clarified how dialogue promoting tolerance towards non-homosexual individuals is antithetical to principles of abstinence." He didn't go too far though. "The judge indicated that the school district's concern about the "premature sexualization" of adolescents was legitimate, but he doubted that the GSA was intended to promote that. The district could take steps to ensure that the club avoided sex education topics "reserved for instruction by qualified teachers in a classroom environment."
What is with all this "premature sexualization" stuff? On the one hand, it could be just another piece of conservative rhetoric designed as a powerful and legitimate sounding way of defending subjective, ideology-inspired beliefs, like homophobia. But look closely at this phrase. "Sexualization?" Teaching straight people that gay people exist is presupposed to "sexualize" them somehow? I guess that's true, insofar as this is an issue of sexual orientation. But at its most basic, this term is a coded way of communicating disgust for homosexuality and is part of an attempted pushback against the gradual (and inevitable) purging of these outdated modes of tought from mainstream society. And what is the first part of this phrase intended to convey? That to the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance would be introducing the majority of high school these students to the idea of homosexuality? Something tells me that these students are more familiar with the idea that not everyone is attracted to the same sex than these administrators are aware. Granted we went against reason and our better judgement and assumed, as these educators do, that their students didn't know what homosexuality was, when would be the appropriate time to make them aware of this?
Quotes from here.
Sneaky Christians with Good Lawyers
I found another case of religious freedom that went down in Williamsburg/James-City County, which is coincidentally where I go to school at William and Mary in Virginia. So here's the rundown.
A Christian prayer club called the Good News Club (GNC) wanted to hold its meetings at the local DJ Montague Elementary School. The school allowed them to use the facility, but as the Good News Club was not a school sponsored club, the school followed their established policy of charging the organization $12.50 per hour to use their facilities.
So from March to June of the 2007-2008 school year, GNC paid about $250.00 dollars for use of classrooms to hold their prayer meetings. When GNC found out that the school exempted some organizations from payment, they freaked out and claimed they too deserved exemption from fees.
The school's policy exempts the following groups from payment: 1) Any James City County Government agency. 2) all school sponsored groups and activities. 3) Organizations deemed "patriotic" under the Code of Virginia and the No Child Left Behind Act. 4) Specific events run by local charitable foundations 5) Activities sponsored by school partners where there is a written partnership agreement.
As you can see, the School covered its bases when it crafted this policy. In fact, it specified religious organizations as "other" groups which are not exempt from fees.
So the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia, on behalf of the GNC, filed for an injunction to force the school to waive the fees. To gain this injunction, the GNC had to prove that paying the $250.00 dollars the school charged in fees caused "irreparable harm." Plaintiffs claimed they suffered irreparable harm of two types, financial and constitutional. Here we go...
This is where the GNC starts to bullshit. First of all, it costs $350.00 just to file the motion, which is 100 dollars MORE than the fee that is supposedly causing them "irreparable harm."
But the court ultimately agreed with the Christians' argument that such fees constituted a violation of their religious freedoms, because the school's decision to charge them was based solely on the fact that they were a religious group, which violates the establishment clause in the 1st amendment.
The Judge reasoned that the school's policy empowered the superintendent to choose which organizations would be exempted without setting forth any concrete standards about how to do so.
In a press release, The Liberty Counsel, the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia's parent organization, said, "after-school Good News Clubs teach children respect, good citizenship, moral values and character development from a biblical perspective." I think that this decision is ok, and actually the sign of a healthy religious environment in this country, so long as this club is not a smokescreen for teaching kids that abortion is wrong, God endorses the Iraq War, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. A lot of the Liberty Counsel's work does focus on these perverse objectives, but this seems like a case of genuine freedom to practice religion.
Court decisions should strike a balance between the rights of individuals to express their religion, and the rights of other individuals to be protected from the excesses of these expressions.
As a matter of law, this case seems pretty clear cut. The school's policy is designed to exempt organizations that facilitate the growth of students' character, moral competency, and understanding of the world. In my opinion, religion is not the best way to facilitate that type of growth. However, it's a completely subjective matter of opinion and personal viewpoint what constitutes good morals and an accurate understanding of the world.
A Christian prayer club called the Good News Club (GNC) wanted to hold its meetings at the local DJ Montague Elementary School. The school allowed them to use the facility, but as the Good News Club was not a school sponsored club, the school followed their established policy of charging the organization $12.50 per hour to use their facilities.
So from March to June of the 2007-2008 school year, GNC paid about $250.00 dollars for use of classrooms to hold their prayer meetings. When GNC found out that the school exempted some organizations from payment, they freaked out and claimed they too deserved exemption from fees.
The school's policy exempts the following groups from payment: 1) Any James City County Government agency. 2) all school sponsored groups and activities. 3) Organizations deemed "patriotic" under the Code of Virginia and the No Child Left Behind Act. 4) Specific events run by local charitable foundations 5) Activities sponsored by school partners where there is a written partnership agreement.
As you can see, the School covered its bases when it crafted this policy. In fact, it specified religious organizations as "other" groups which are not exempt from fees.
So the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia, on behalf of the GNC, filed for an injunction to force the school to waive the fees. To gain this injunction, the GNC had to prove that paying the $250.00 dollars the school charged in fees caused "irreparable harm." Plaintiffs claimed they suffered irreparable harm of two types, financial and constitutional. Here we go...
This is where the GNC starts to bullshit. First of all, it costs $350.00 just to file the motion, which is 100 dollars MORE than the fee that is supposedly causing them "irreparable harm."
But the court ultimately agreed with the Christians' argument that such fees constituted a violation of their religious freedoms, because the school's decision to charge them was based solely on the fact that they were a religious group, which violates the establishment clause in the 1st amendment.
The Judge reasoned that the school's policy empowered the superintendent to choose which organizations would be exempted without setting forth any concrete standards about how to do so.
In a press release, The Liberty Counsel, the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia's parent organization, said, "after-school Good News Clubs teach children respect, good citizenship, moral values and character development from a biblical perspective." I think that this decision is ok, and actually the sign of a healthy religious environment in this country, so long as this club is not a smokescreen for teaching kids that abortion is wrong, God endorses the Iraq War, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. A lot of the Liberty Counsel's work does focus on these perverse objectives, but this seems like a case of genuine freedom to practice religion.
Court decisions should strike a balance between the rights of individuals to express their religion, and the rights of other individuals to be protected from the excesses of these expressions.
As a matter of law, this case seems pretty clear cut. The school's policy is designed to exempt organizations that facilitate the growth of students' character, moral competency, and understanding of the world. In my opinion, religion is not the best way to facilitate that type of growth. However, it's a completely subjective matter of opinion and personal viewpoint what constitutes good morals and an accurate understanding of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)