Strawberry Fields Forever

We're in the future now...

2009-01-20T12:14:00.000-08:00

I have always looked back at the most glorious episodes in American history wistfully, wondering why leaders of such character, why moments of such gravity must stay locked to the past. No longer.

Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States of America. A man, who in Aaron Sorkin's most fevered dreams would dismiss as too unrealistic, is in fact, the President of the United States of America. 80 years after Martin Luther King Jr. was born, and 200 years after the the birth of Abraham Lincoln - both of them heroes of mine, we inaugurated Barack Hussein Obama.

I keep on wanting to write this, to repeat this, in the hope that writing it one more time will cause the unreality of the moment to either dissipate or coalesce. That this would happen, and that it would happen because he was the best for the job, because he ran the best campaign I have witnessed for President, because he earned it - I don't know if I should cry or shout U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!

We aren't living Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream today, we're now living in that future that we always knew would come.. someday.

I'm so glad I'm alive to see this!

Yes we ARE

2008-11-05T13:25:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was in balance a good day for this nation, and frankly, by extension this world.

True, it wasn't a perfect day - the cause of equality took a hit in my state of California, a convicted felon may yet be reelected by the citizens of the state of Alaska to name two imperfections - but in balance, it was good.

We finally are coming close to the day when President Bush and Vice President Cheney will skitter off into the dark shadows of history, but the messes they and their party created will be with us for a long time.

There's a lot of work to be done.

However, yesterday we moved beyond simply asserting that 'yes we can'.

We CAN do an awful lot. Most people CAN run a marathon. Most people CAN live better lives. Most people CAN achieve nearly anything they set their minds to.

Potential is one thing, but we have moved beyond mere potential.

We DID elect the first African American President of the United States. On January 20th, he WILL move into a house built with slave labor. This in itself is momentous.

But as I said, we have so much to do, but I contend, with this election, we ARE on the path.

Even with setbacks to equality like the likely passage of Proposition 8, it is hard not to be encouraged that it was only 8 years ago that a very similar measure passed by a whopping 20 point margin. Even taking into account that the turnout was significantly higher in this election, that's still a stunning shift in the population towards equality.

This doesn't take away the horrible realization that a majority of the voters have decided to nullify EXISTING marriages - to have a majority explicitly oppress a minority - but it does tell me that equality will win - it's just an issue of when.

Progress rarely happens in a straight line, as yesterday demonstrated, but it's also clear that progress IS happening.

"Yes we can" is morphing into "Yes We Are"

I'm so proud to be an American.

Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

2008-11-03T17:55:00.000-08:00

Holding my breath hoping for Obama, the failure of CA Prop 8, and the necessary numbers in Congress in order to actually enact positive change.

Expect me to pass out from lack of oxygen before polls close in the West Coast. (thankfully I already voted)

Tryanny of the majority

2008-05-19T12:29:00.000-07:00

I wrote a bit in the last post about the "tyranny of the majority". Of course, this was one of the principle concerns of the framers of the Constitution, and explains why much of the Constitution is by design anti-democratic (note the small 'd').

In 2004 I watched the Republican (note the big 'R') machine win on issues including attacking minorities - specifically homosexuals, and putting up initiatives across the states specifically designed to restrict the rights of homosexuals. There are cases where politics is the genuine disagreement between two sides wherein both sides have a valid point - this is not one of those. While I grant that there may be some minority within the homosexual population wherein their sexual orientation is a choice - and I suppose at gunpoint I could probably "decide" to override my own heterosexual identity, in the vast majority of cases, it is simply not a choice.

Frankly, even were it to be a choice, there is no reasonable argument for restricting the freedoms of those who are homosexual. Fundamentally the only reason this is an issue at all is because a segment of the population's private religious beliefs dictate it, and because others are personally uncomfortable with homosexuals. Republicans used these excuses in 2004, and I'm fed up with it. People used the same (or even flimsier) excuses against people with black skin (and sometimes still do). Realistically there will always be a segment of the population whose religious beliefs dictate these tendencies - and while it's their right to believe what they wish to, it is NOT their right to oppress others with them.

Even more so, for those who fundamentally are uncomfortable with those who are different, I have little to no sympathy nor patience anymore. I believe in plurality and tolerance, but I'm fed up with being tolerant of ignorance and childishness. (note: I am NOT comparing religious beliefs to ignorance and childishness, these are two separate groups of people I am referring to)

I have a friend who I am in contact with at times (and I don't name names here because I feel it is fundamentally unfair to reveal persons identities and beliefs/etc to the world that don't choose to do so themselves) and I had a "conversation" with him last night. I found out that somehow he believes that Barack Obama is somehow a secret Muslim, but also a follower of a radical White-hating Christian. Don't ask me how that is possible to hold both of those beliefs, I tried to suss it out of him, and it didn't work. He then tried to explain a bunch of incoherent ramblings about illegal immigrants and how Obama would take away all rights. I tried to explain how Obama is a former constitutional law professor, and actually knows the Constitution and rattled off how many rights have been eviscerated or outright lost under this administration. Then he started shouting racial slurs, and at that point I realized it was pointless to continue the call - I simply hung up. The guy is not evil, but he is fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of a "black president". That's his right, and it's my right to stop trying to win him over and work like crazy to elect Obama president and force him to confront his childish fears.

(for the record, I did NOT want to engage in any sort of political discussion, I had called to see how he was and how his children are)

Just as there are wackos on the left that don't listen to reason, there are wackos everywhere who don't listen to reason, and I just don't have the energy to try to convince those who are simply looking for excuses to justify their prejudices. Sometimes a society progresses by quiet persuasion over many years, and sometimes it has to be forced upon those who are fundamentally scared of people who are different. I thank the California Supreme Court (and earlier the State Legislature who passed a bill doing the same twice earlier) for having the courage to try to force the issue.

I thank Barack Obama and his supporters for having the courage to try to force another issue - that a "black president" is not something to be feared - especially when he has the potential to be a great president.

I didn't vote for Obama because he has dark skin; I voted for him because I felt he could be a great President. However, after that conversation, I am glad I did additionally because my friends' children will have a shot of moving beyond the prejudices of their father.

All you need is love?

2008-05-18T14:07:00.001-07:00

This last week the Supreme Court of California (indirectly) took a step forward at erasing one of the last second-class citizen groups left in society by ruling that California must recognize so-called "gay marriage" if they are to recognize marriage at all. It should come as no surprise at all that I am very much in favor of this ruling.

I do recognize the argument that the voters themselves voted less than 8 years ago and resoundingly voted to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, and that this is seen by many as social engineering by the judiciary. Frankly, I don't care about either. This was also the way that schools were desegregated, among a slew of the other social progresses occurred over the last century or so. On the topic of the voters, I am very much a democrat (in this case note the small d), but I am also a big believer in the ideas and ideals behind the federal Constitution. One of its guiding principles was that to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." In this case, the majority would deny rights to a minority - rights that really do not impact much, if at all on the majority. It's pretty clear that "gay marriage" in Massachusetts hasn't exactly destroyed all "heterosexual marriages" since its inception, nor is there any reason to believe it will.

However, this is a bit more personal to me than simply abstract ideas about extending freedom to minority groups. I remember a time, several years ago when I was talking to a good friend, and I commented to him that I thought he could be a good father someday. A few weeks later, he confided in me that my comments had stuck with him because he was coming to terms with his own sexual orientation, and that he was in fact gay.

At that moment a slew of thoughts dawned on me. First of all, I was touched that he would feel that he would be able to tell me this. Second of all, I was somewhat relieved to realize that I did not have a childish negative reaction - that he was still the same friend he was before regardless of his sexual orientation. Third of all, I realized how my comments must have stung a bit. He was admitting to himself that he was a member of a minority, a minority that in society had no hope of ever achieving the relatively simple goal of having a family - of getting married and having children. I have to admit, I felt really bad about what I had said earlier even if I meant it to be a positive comment when I said it.

There's still a long way to go, but it greatly encourages me today that my friend, and everyone who shares his sexual orientation may be one step closer to being able to have the opportunity to live out the dreams and aspirations that we all have.

In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote in our founding document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I think we are one step closer to this goal. This was a good week for California.

Is hope audacious?

2008-02-12T22:57:00.000-08:00

I've had several thoughts percolating around my head as I've watched the Democratic primary process unfold.

I suppose for most of the time, I had leaned towards supporting Senator Obama, but I had my doubts. Specifically, I wasn't clear on if he could be an effective President or even run an effective campaign. Lately, my doubts are growing dimmer and dimmer.

This lessening of doubt is caused by more than just being caught up in Obama-mania. Clearly the man has an element of a cultural phenomenon, and it really wouldn't surprise me if that very fact is reason why there is some resistance to his candidacy. Indeed, I have friends, who I imagine would gladly support Obama if it weren't for this near messianic image the media and many of Obama's supporters hold for Obama. In a way, I understand this reasoning. This support is ephemeral, promises nothing concrete, and ultimately not enough to really lessen either of my doubts.

On policy points, he also doesn't completely win me over. Indeed, I think I prefer Clinton's general approach to health care reform over Obama's more cautious approach. I think Obama's is smarter for a general election since it isn't mandates based for adults, but that difference will have an impact in actual policy. I do appreciate that he was against the Iraq invasion from the start, and I do think it speaks to his judgment greatly, but even that isn't enough since I don't really count Clinton's vote against her given the circumstances.

The guy is probably the best speaker we've had as serious challenger for the President since JFK, but even then - that's not enough. Though I have to admit, it is an awe-inspiring experience to watch him on the stump. Given his background, given his rhetoric, given his standards, he almost feels like an Aaron Sorkin protagonist come to life - although I think even Aaron Sorkin would find such a perfect combination to be a bit contrived. Again, I need a President to do more than simply speak well. Reagan could speak well too (though not AS good).

I think what it comes down to, is that he may be The Real Deal. For a long time, I've been waiting for someone to figure out how to break through the barriers keeping back progress in the U.S. since the civil rights era ended in the mid 1960s.

President Carter tried, and while I think he's an amazing human being, ultimately was ineffective as a commander in chief.

President Clinton was able to hold back the tide a bit, and given the environment in the 1990s, that was no easy feat. He helped though, and really, a turn back to those years wouldn't be the worst possible thing.

The problem is though that both were ultimately stymied and defeated from making real progress by the conventions of our political realities.

Carter didn't understand the nature of power in Washington and the realities of how hard it is to rally a nation to your side to do the difficult things necessary to enact real progress.

Clinton didn't really try very hard for big change after being so horrifically defeated by the Health Care reform attempt and then the Republicans ascending into power in Congress in 1994.

Despite my background in Political Science, which tries to to tell me that nothing ever changes, I don't believe that must be true. Change can and does happen throughout history, but it usually requires ignoring or rewriting the rules.

Before 2000, I watched a good friend attempt to put together a long-shot attempt to encourage a little-known Senator for Minnesota to run for President who actually knew something about defeating the system's long odds - Paul Wellstone.

He was a short, pugnacious, incredibly earnest Senator elected twice despite some incredible odds. When his opponents blanketed him with millions of dollars of negative ads accusing him of being "embarrassingly liberal", Senator Wellstone adopted that very phrase as a campaign slogan. He combated the entrenched interests attempting to defeat him with a grass-roots organization that worked door to door to defeat the odds. He changed the rules - and he won. He fought for the issues that almost no one else had the courage to do and though he was only one voice in the Senate, it was a beacon of hope.

Ultimately, he didn't run for President in 2000, and horribly, he died shortly before election night in 2002 in a plane accident.

However, the movement started that tried to get him to run, the movement that desired a candidate, a message, a power that was truly of the people, didn't die. In 2003, after courageously standing against the Bush administration's march to war when everyone else in the Democratic party was terrified to speak up, Howard Dean quickly found the people flocking to him. His courage was soon met with the then nascent net-roots, and suddenly he didn't need to worry about corporate donations - he had the people to donate. He had the people to be his army, to carry his message.

Unfortunately, either the candidate wasn't the correct one or the time wasn't quite right - for whatever actual reason (and no, it wasn't "the scream"), he didn't make it in 2004. (though on a side note, I really do appreciate the work he has done as the DNC chair - indeed, I'm REALLY glad he's there now)

However, now 4 years later we see the newest, and purest manifestation of this force in Barack Obama. Unlike Howard Dean though, there seems to be a real method here. While his detractors may minimize Obama's experience - it is exactly his experience that is now in my view his greatest factor erasing my doubt. His experience is that of a community organizer. In this new political reality being formed, that is EXACTLY the experience, and frame of mind needed. It is also exactly a perfect marriage with this new force in politics that has been forming.

His campaign is radically decentralized. His support is broad and fervent and built from the ground and then up. Everyone involved is personally invested. His donors are small, and insanely numerous. That makes him far more robust going into a general election.

Republicans since the 1970s have been perfecting a cynical variation of grass-roots supporting wherein a few people are able to generate support for a narrow set of issues by tapping into mailing lists, and more recent talk radio and other outlets and think tanks that they have developed. The liberals have had no such apparatus realistically.

Maybe we don't even need it now.

The community organizing background showed Obama how to enact change by flooding the avenues of power with the sheer force of numbers of energy. This is our antidote. It is also why he could be far more effective at both winning the election and effecting the change we so badly need.

Clinton was defeated with this machine in 1994 during the Health Care debate, and Kerry was slaughtered by it in 2004. However, now we may have an army ready to respond door to door, person to person. That's even more powerful than "Harry and Louise" to hear it from an actual neighbor. The entrenched powers are strong, but I don't believe they can hold up against a grass-roots organization of concerned, impassioned citizens numbering in the tens of millions.

It's important to realize, we already see evidence of this in his very campaign. The turnout he has been getting is nothing short of shocking. The crowded arenas, the volunteers, the increasing coalitions he is winning with, the independent and Republican support, the youth vote, the disaffected voters being pulled into the process, the over 400,000 donors - it's all concrete evidence that Barack Obama may really be The Real Deal finally. Obama has the best shot at harnessing this to truly effect the change we need because he understands it best from his experience.

Is this still a gamble? Of course it is... but I don't think it's a bad one at all.

I still like Senator Clinton, and I still believe she can be a good President, but I'm really starting to think that a President Obama may be the true game-changing agent of true progress that I have hoped for as long as I have cared about what happens to my nation.

It has hurt like crazy to see what damage has been inflicted upon this nation by the current administration, and turning back the worst of the damage would be good - but moving past the rules of the game that allowed for it, to push beyond the fear and division - that would be the start of justice.

I still think Clinton has the edge in this race, and I will support her gladly, but I really am hoping for Obama to win it. It's finally time to dare to hope again.

Oh yeah, to answer the blog title - no, I don't think it is particularly audacious - it's logical.

Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns...

2008-02-04T22:45:00.000-08:00

I don't have too much to say in this blog, except to say the recent transmission of "Across The Universe" to Polaris is beyond any realm of the word awesome.

I remember watching an early episode of the X-Files in which a Senator character talks about the music on the gold record included on the Voyager (or V-ger depending on how hard-core a Star Trek fan you are) spacecraft - including the piece by Bach and how creepy it was to hear that same music played back on speakers "magically" when an apparent UFO visit befell Agent Mulder later in the same episode. Imagine how much more calming it would be if it were instead the calming sound of John Lennon singing "nothing's gonna change my world".

Come to think of it, aren't we just challenging any potential hostile aliens to prove us wrong by boasting so proudly that nothing is going to change our world?

I'd also like to know what exact version of the song is being broadcast (I couldn't find out in any of the press releases I have read, but I would *GUESS* the orchestrated version from the Let it Be LP is the most likely candidate). I also find it odd they would call it the 40th anniversary of the song (which is true, it was recorded exactly 40 years ago), while it wasn't released in any form until 1969.

Anyway, these questions and legitimate concerns of tempting any potential future alien overlords with overconfidence, this is still supremely cool.

Oh yeah, occasionally, I cite a source.

Update: Apparently they used the so-called "Wildlife" version of Across The Universe over the more common version from the "Let it Be" LP. It's the one with the "Apple Scruffs" backing vocal somewhat audible and the entire thing sped up a bit.

Still, this no way diminishes how cool it all is.

It's been a long, long, long time...

2008-02-04T00:08:00.000-08:00

Well, since apparently I am posting again, I should probably do a quick recap of the last half a year or so in the oh-so music/film world.

In Rainbows - Radiohead

Radiohead is not an easy band to like which is part of why their strong following is frankly puzzling to me. They record challenging music (well, at least they have since OK Computer), yet they remain popular. This album no doubt was helped by a brilliant stunt by the band in their famous decision to release it online at a "name your price"-point that could literally be 0 dollars (or pounds). It was a gutsy decision in way, though I suppose given how insanely unpopular the major recording labels (and the RIAA) are, it probably wasn't THAT gutsy. Anyway, it's good that they apparently made a mint on the plan - even I paid (more than I thought I was) for the digital download - which WAS good old mp3 (though unfortunately encoded at an inadequate 160kbit/sec, but that's another story). Indeed, most likely they made more just in that digital download than they would have possibly made by "properly" releasing their record through a major label. (ironically, EMI records, their former company was the first of the major labels to adopt DRM-free policies, but again, that's another story) However, despite how good it was that this stunt worked, it's even better that the album itself is really good. It's not as catchy and anthemic as The Bends, nor is it as complicated, obtuse, and overall challenging as Kid-A (and I consider those 2 albums their best) - but it's actually probably not far behind either. The album has been analyzed by countless critics - the bottom line is I like a great deal of the songs on it and I find it in heavy rotation. Had Memory Almost Full and Sky Blue Sky also not been out last year, In Rainbows would likely have been my favorite. (or it that favourite?)

Grade: B+

I do film reviews on occasion, but there are too many backlogged ones, so I will be brief(er)

Judd Apatow's films continue to be wonderful. Superbad and Knocked Up are wildly different comedies, but both equally great. Even Walk Hard, while not quite living up to the sheer level of genius of The Rutles, was a good deal of fun.

Ratatouille continued Pixar's streak of thus far not having released an even mediocre film. It may not be the studio's best film (which I would argue is a 3-way tie between Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles), but really this may not have been far off.

The Darjeeling Limited continued Wes Anderson's even more incredible record than Pixar. It isn't Rushmore, but it's another addition to that man's wonderful cinematic world.

Also, let me just say that Juno is worthy of the hype - it's worth checking out.

I may be forgetting a film or two, but those are the ones from last year that I really enjoyed.

In terms of television, The Colbert Report and The Daily Show continue to be excellent even with the Writer's Strike, which I hope either ends soon, or I hope that the studios themselves end.

The Office (US) continues to be a series that's extremely worthy of its pedigree. (frankly, I think it's FUNNIER than the UK original - though that series had a lot more pathos)

And the series I had my doubts about originally, Battlestar Galactica continues to amaze me. Given his history on Star Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, and now Battlestar Galactica, at this point I think Ron Moore can do no wrong (much like how I feel about Pixar and Wes Anderson for that matter).

Well, that should pretty much catch me up on those fronts.

And again, if you live in the 22 states voting on Tuesday (and are eligible) remember to vote!

Everybody's talking and no one says a word...

2008-02-01T16:28:00.000-08:00

Well, here we are once again - at (or near) the start of a new year, and at the eve (at least in the State of California) of yet another Presidential election season. The New York and LA Times have had their say on who they prefer. Senators galore, elder statesmen and stateswomen, as well as Oprah have had their say. Now, it's time for the endorsement that truly matters - the publisher of a primarily Beatles-themed blog that gets an average of .01 readers per day: me.
I have only been able to vote in 2 different Presidential elections (I missed the age cut-off by a cruel 3 months in 1996). However, this may be the first time in a primary in which my vote is both not primarily or even largely defined by a desire to stop a particular candidate I don't like, or as in the case of 2004, largely symbolic. (a sample size of two is excellent to draw historical conclusions after all)
Really, this year the dilemma for a registered Democrat is that we have two excellent candidates, each with the full capacity to be an excellent President - not simply better than the current President, and having two viable choices is rough in that we have to choose.
Hillary Clinton is smart, shows deep understanding of the issues and more importantly a deep understanding of how to govern effectively - I have no doubt that she would be an excellent President.
However, I am not planning on voting for her on Tuesday. I plan to vote for Barrack Obama. He too shows a deep understanding for the issues, but demonstrates a strong possibility for a transformative leadership that can reshape our nation for the better. The word change is bandied around so much right now by every candidate, including Obama, that the word has largely lost its meaning. Change is one thing. George W. Bush represented change as well. Indeed, this nation has been on a radically different track since he took office. Change is a neutral word implying simply a difference. We don't need change, we need to move forward. When I look at Hillary Clinton I see a person who can reign back the excesses of the Bush administration and put us back on the track that her husband led us on. Fundamentally that makes her conservative (in the dictionary definition) in my book. When I look at Barack Obama, I don't see an agent of change, but rather the potential for actual progress. The analogies comparing him to JFK are not unfounded. There were doubts about both men's experience to lead, and there was an undeniable charisma to both men. JFK was hardly a perfect President, and in reality history may never be able to look upon his record in a real manner due to his assassination - but what IS clear was he was a visionary that could dare this nation to dream great dreams and then achieve them. I see this potential with Barack Obama.
Already Obama has been quietly working to diffuse the horrible violence in his father's homeland of Kenya (while in the middle of campaigning mind you!). Already Obama has shown courage and leadership on difficult issues such as his stand on the War in Iraq, and a clearer stand in ethics and campaign reform. Let me be clear, while the pressure was no where near what it was on sitting Senators in the U.S. Congress to vote for the war, it was still a courageous position for him to take back in 2002. He also demonstrated frankly better judgment than my own. At the start of the war, I was on the fence because I held out some degree of hope that maybe despite really flimsy pretenses, that we could do good for the Iraqi people. I misjudged the abject wretchedness of the Bush administration, yet Obama did not.
That said, Barack is not without his flaws. While clearly his words were twisted during the interview in which he supposedly praised Republican policies and ideas (he in fact claimed that Reagan was a transformative leader, and that Republicans have been a party of ideas - neither claim actually meaning he thinks either are good), he clearly at the very least, chose his words poorly. I also despise the nastiness that both his and Clintons' campaign have resorted to at times - though I must admit that overall it has not gone beyond the pale, and in the end, I'm very glad to see that Obama CAN survive the firestorm - he will need to in the general election.
I need to once again reiterate, I really do like both candidates, and I think either would be an excellent President. What really surprises and even shocks me is that there are DEMOCRATS who actively dislike one or the other and will refuse to support the other. The level of vitriol may not equal the Republican vitriol between supporters of their various candidates, but it is still undue. I would rather not have another Clinton in the White House for no other reason than it would mean at the least 32 years straight of a Bush or Clinton being President or Vice President - but that's not enough of a reason not to vote for Clinton. I also get that Obama may actually get knocked for the hype and praise on his campaign by the so-called media. Once again, I could care less.
In the end, especially in a primary, one should simply vote for the person they most want to be President. Strategic voting, concerns over electability, anything else is in my view rather silly. As a person who has a degree in Political Science, I am pretty well convinced that there is little if any science in Politics. It may be necessary to become pragmatic in a general election since the choices are locked, but in a primary no such compromises are necessary. In the end, if people vote for someone, then he or she is electable.
Anyway, in the end, I plan to vote for Barack Obama. If you too have the privilege of voting on this upcoming Tuesday or another day, I do recommend you do your research. Read up on him and Hillary Clinton - even read up on the Republicans. You should watch the debates, view speeches, and on your election day, vote for the person you most want to the President of the United States. I know I will be proudly doing so this Tuesday when I vote for Barack Obama.

Does this post mean more will follow? It may.

I am an American aquarium drinker...

2007-06-04T20:29:00.000-07:00

Memory Almost Full may be the album I was most looking forward to this year, it wasn't the only one. Thanks to my friend Matteen - Wilco has been on my radar (or is it sonar) for the last several years. He first introduced me to (likely) their most well known album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - which was likely a mistake. Don't get me wrong, it's a good album - and certainly a lot more interesting and adventurous than most albums of their contemporaries or even a lot of the bands I truly love - but it's not really the album I would try to introduce Wilco with. For that purpose, I would likely go with Being There or (my favorite album of theirs) Summerteeth. Yankee though has more than its share of incredible moments - especially the aching beauty of "Radio Cure".
While I may have a few small "Reservations" (yeah, the pun is intended) about the LP, the film made of the making of the album is really quite remarkable. Of course, I'm referring to "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", and I highly recommend it for anyone who either already likes Wilco, or thinks they might want to give them a try. If you're in the former camp and (somehow) haven't seen the film yet - do so. You will like it. It's very much like watching "Let It Be" for me, but with a happier ending, and with a band that I don't quite care as much about. However, much like "Let It Be", on a musical front one is treated to alternate arrangements that usually are inferior to the final incarnations, but are always fascinating and frankly rather good on their own. For the uninitiated to Wilco, you get (rather great) live versions of their earlier works intercut throughout the film showing the band capable of "rocking out" a lot more than their records normally suggest.
However, while "Let it Be" showed a band struggling to be a band, and falling apart at the collective weight of their expectations, ambivilance and individual egos - this film is more about a struggle for a band to stay true to itself despite the overwhelming pressures of an increasingly corporatized record business, health issues for their band-leader Tweedy, and a few ego clashes. (which were shown amazingly even-handedly even though the aftermath of the album was the firing of one of the two involved in the clashes) However, much like "Let It Be", there is some really wonderful music involved in it all. There's no rooftop concert, but at the end of the this film, you know the band has won in its struggle, has released their "biggest" album up to that point, and will do quite well.

Grade for "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" - B+

(Yankee Hotel Foxtrot would probably be a B)

Now, since I referenced this at the start, I should also talk about Wilco's new album, "Sky Blue Sky" which came out recently. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this - except that I know I like the album. From the standpoint of analysis, I am not sure if they are retreating to the safer sounds of their earlier albums like U2 did with "All That You Can't Leave Behind", or if they are boldly turning a new step forward like the Rolling Stones with "Beggar's Banquet", Dylan's "John Wesley Harding" or even the Beatles' self-titled double album. Maybe in the end, all of these "retreats" towards earlier sounds are the same, and its one's own opinion of the result which colors whether we see the moves as bold or weak. In this case though, I see the move as neither.
Unless the band wanted to try to push the boundaries of popular music like Radiohead did with "Kid-A", or try for an entirely different genre, it wasn't clear where Wilco could go from "A Ghost Is Born". Instead, in terms of sound and lyrics, it seems like the bizarre offspring of "Being There" and "A Ghost Is Born" - the lyrics are almost as obtuse and ambiguous as "A Ghost Is Born", but the sound is far more organic. Also, the guitar work on several songs really is wonderful. "On And On And On" is a truly beautiful song about a son comforting his widowed father, and most of the rest of the album is good as well - but nothing else matches that emotional impact. Only "Shake It Off" really begs to be skipped.
Much like "Memory Almost Full", I have listened to this album more than enough times to feel confident in my view that the album is very good, and had "Memory Almost Full" not been in this year's releases, may have been a contender this year.

Grade: B+

And in the end of the end...?

2007-06-03T13:47:00.000-07:00

I honestly didn't expect 2 years after hearing Chaos and Creation in the Backyard to hear another new LP from Sir Paul. What can I say? Sometimes I really like being surprised.

Given that just about everyone has heard (and reviewed) this album even though it isn't out until this Tuesday, I will simply add my voice to the collective chorus - Paul McCartney may have lost his gift... of making frustratingly uneven albums filled with incredible melodies but truly wretched lyrics. This album marks one decade of him releasing truly great albums that I love without reservation.
I know Dylan has the recognition today for being the reformed 60s master who once again is releasing material as good as anything in his career - but really, Paul deserves the same recognition. True, as much as I love Flaming Pie (1997), Run Devil Run (1999), Driving Rain (2001), Chaos And Creation in the Backyard (2005), and now Memory Almost Full (2007) - I'll be the first to say his work with the Beatles was still superior. However, compare those 5 albums to ANY other period in his solo career, and there's no contest.
Ironically, this decade of album making has probably been his worst in terms of album sales (though I can't say that with certainty) - but he no longer seems to care all that much. His efforts from the late 70s (ie: Back To The Egg) or early to mid-80s clearly try to latch onto the latest musical fads in order to keep himself in the so-called mainstream of musical culture. After that, from Flowers In The Dirt through Off The Ground he seems to be going through the motions of trying to sound like a former Beatle. Note: I happen to love a LOT of the music created in this era, but it really sounds to me like him trying to conform to what he thinks others want him to be.
True, Flaming Pie is also quite consciously an album that celebrates his Beatles roots - yet, the album has a real feeling of joy and silliness that was largely missing on his earlier works. I really get the feeling that he is recording the album for himself, and anyone else who happens to like what he likes. At the very least, I really hope he didn't record "Really Love You" with the hope that a song with the lyric "I need you heart baby, hopping on a plate" was going to burn up the billboard charts.
Of course, Flaming Pie also had another factor which significantly distinguished it from his earlier works - a real sense of pain. Listen to "Somedays" and try not to hear his fear for losing Linda to cancer. Sometimes great art comes from chaos and pain - "Hey Jude" was written to comfort a 5-year old Julian Lennon whose parents were divorcing, and up until "Flaming Pie", Paul seemed to be living an awfully good life.
Run Devil Run was recorded in the aftermath of Linda's death - and if anyone listens to his incredible cover of "No Other Baby" you can hear how much he misses her. As much as I love his earlier solo efforts, rarely did he ever pull off that kind of emotion convincingly.
In 2001, he released Driving Rain, which wasn't as good as Flaming Pie (which I consider the high-water mark of his post-Beatles work), but the raw emotion is still there. "Lonely Road" and "Heather" especially show his still raw pain at the loss of Linda, and the excitement of his (then) new love.
Chaos and Creation In the Backyard continued these trends and he released probably the moodiest album of his catalog. The man who recorded "Silly Love Songs" could now pull off a song like "Riding To Vanity Fair"! The album grows on one a lot, but I couldn't help but feel a little bit like the album was heavily influenced by its producer who told Paul how he (Paul) should sound like. Paul's rockier, and sillier tendencies were very much in check, for better or worse.
What precedes just brings me to up to the new album, Memory Almost Full. Technically about half of the album pre-dates Chaos and Creation, but much like Beck's The Information (which mostly predated Geuro, yet was released afterwards), I can't figure out why on Earth Paul shelved the project in favor of Chaos and Creation. I love Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, but as I said above, it doesn't really feel like a full-fledged Paul McCartney album - for better or worse, Memory Almost Full does.

Silliness? Check
Attempt to recapture his Abbey Road medley mojo? Check
An attempt at at least one loud rocker? Check
At least one song extolling him not caring what anyone else says about himself? Check

This may sound like a recipe for disaster, but really, it's glorious. With only 2 exceptions, this album is magnificent. (the two being "You Tell Me" and "Gratitude" - both tracks can be skipped) His silliness is mostly related to the opening track (which should have NEVER been a single) which is basically a mood-setter for the album with simple lyrics and whistling. As an opening cut - it's wonderful.
"Ever Present Past" is much more logical as a single - with some downright interesting lyrics. (when did Paul get good at lyrics!?!?)
"See Your Sunshine" has a beautiful melody, some trademark Paul bass work, and ultimately a really sweet song for his young daughter.
Of course, the album really doesn't come alive until track 4, where "Only Mama Knows" kicks in. By that I mean it really kicks in. After a false orchestral opening the track comes roaring in with some of the most determined guitar tracks that Paul has EVER put on record. There's an anger to his vocal, and a great deal of ambiguity to what the lyrics mean (is he really angry at Linda for leaving him alive after she died??) - but man if this isn't an incredible song. The idea that Paul should avoid trying to write hard rock songs in his 60s is insane. As long as he can pull songs like this off, he should do whatever on Earth he pleases.
Of course, "You Tell Me" kicks in and is the first clunker on the album. Thankfully there are few clunkers.
Next up is the truly silly "Mr. Belamy" - and what glorious silliness it is. This is another one of the ideas that clearly wouldn't have made it past the producer on Chaos and Creation, but the idea of writing a song about a cat stuck up a tree - from the perspective of the cat somehow really works. It's quirky, with odd instrumental flourishes, but somehow Paul can manage it without it ending up being a joke on him. In a way, this song feels like a sequel to his song "Back on my Feet" - the song about an old curmudgeon who knows he will die alone and doesn't really care because he lives life on his own terms. In this case the cat is steadfast in his desire to be alone and work on his plans and doesn't need anyone else. (As some in comments have pointed out - Paul has denied that this song is in fact about a cat - despite that it's hard to heard the song any other way for me)
"Gratitude" is another song best skipped - it's not really bad, but not as good as what precedes it or what follows.
Next up is the song-cycle. It's not really a medley, since the songs basically just have no breaks between them. Saying this is a medley is like saying that The Beatles (aka "The White Album") is a medley. Of course, most of the songs are on a common theme - a rough story of Paul's life. He starts off with a spirited defense of his age - and again I can see the idea of comparing himself to old clothing being rejected on Chaos - and it's too bad. The song has a great drive to it, and a real wit to the lyrics that was largely missing from Chaos.
Then there's "That Was Me" - which starts off as a nice recap of his life with oblique references to his youth and times with the Beatles - but gets interesting in the later half when he starts screaming the lyrics ala "Oh! Darling". He's nearly 65, and his voice can still manage that!
Next up is "Feet in the Clouds" another nice song about fighting the conventions and expectations - another defense of himself. It wouldn't work all that well, except for how he somehow twists the song with an odd twist on a Brian Wilson-esque harmony with himself singing through a vocoder playing against himself. It sounds really wonderful and saves the song entirely.
Then there's "House of Wax", which truth be told, I like less than most who review the album. The song is good, the lyrics interesting, and the guitar work is inspired, but it doesn't really feel like it fits in the so-called medley. It's good - but in my view not the highlight of the album.
Then there's "The End of the End". Here's another song with Paul explicitly talking about his mortality - and him audaciously trying comparing himself to his own song "The End" with one of his most famous lyrics - "and in the end, the love you make is equal to the love you take". Scarily, this new song holds up even with such expectations. This song is truly beautiful.
To cap out the album there's "Nod Your Head" - a very silly false ending to the album. I must agree that there should be a bit of a silence gap between "End of the End" and this, but I rather like this silly bit of noise. The lyrics are extremely silly, and appropriate for once.

Anyway, overall, this album doesn't quite unseat "Flaming Pie" from my position as favorite solo album by Paul, but it's a good competition. I can't imagine any other album coming out this year being this good - and yes, I will be picking up the deluxe edition on Tuesday. I want Paul to keep on making albums that remind us that the genius that was one-half of the greatest song-writing pair in history is still alive and well.

Grade: A

(note: I've listened to the album a few dozen times at this point, so I feel pretty secure in my evaluation at this point)

Better... better... better... better.......

2007-03-13T23:37:00.000-07:00

Those of you who really know me, know that not only is "Hey Jude" my favorite song, but that I very rarely listen to it. Since I was closing in on track # 40,000 played through last.fm, I decided it was time to listen to it to be the magic # 40,000..

In a way, I like the fact I listen to the song rarely, so the sheer rush of when they build up to the climax of the song "better.. better..." comes through full force. It almost seems that if I listened too often, it would become common place. As Paul McCartney sang in another song (solo career) - "May I never miss the thrill of being near you..." I never want that sheer thrill to grow old.

This may sound cliche to call Hey Jude my favorite song of all time - but it really is. The lyrics are simple, and the chorus may be even simpler - but the joy of the song is so pure that it simply doesn't matter.

The build up to that point where Paul just let loose that one note right before the chorus started crashing in.... I compare it to the build up of the orchestra in the last movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony where it sounds like heaven is just about to open up, only to have the strings come crashing in with a simple, almost flirty melody. I also compare it to that wondrous moment in the Rhapsody in Blue when all of a sudden the full orchestra swells the theme of the piece - but even that disintegrates back into the disjointed piano. (no, I'm not describing either of these well - there was a reason I did poorly in my music class at Berkeley)

The difference between these pieces and Hey Jude, to me, is that unlike those other pieces, in Hey Jude, heaven DOES open up. For that one moment when Paul is holding that note, it's truly perfect. I never want not to experience that sheer thrill. Yes, the chorus afterwards is simple - but so is joy. One doesn't need polyphony, Chaucer-level lyricism and atonality to express joy. And at it's core, that's all that "nah-nah, nah-nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah-nah, Hey Jude" expresses. Couple that with Paul's inspired vocalizations as the chorus winds on, and really, how can one not feel a piece of the sheer joy of the song?

On top of that, the story of the song - of Paul wanting to comfort young Julian Lennon at the impending divorce of Julian's parents, further endears it. And while simple, the lyrics are lyrics of hope. Hope of getting the girl, hope of overcoming fear, of accomplishing the great feat, hope of not only being able to make things better, but of doing so.

Oh yeah, the harmony vocals in the first half of the song are also just so ludicrously beautiful.

Yes, I am effusive in my praise here, and likely more than a little silly. But it's hard to be rational - I love this song, plain and simple.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

2007-03-13T23:17:00.000-07:00

No, this isn't a Who related post (though "their" new album, Endless Wire, hasn't yet engaged me enough to justify a single full listen, which probably says a lot about the album) - but a more literal reference to me starting a new job. As the title implies though, my old boss, will be my new boss, as I will be working for my friends' new company (different company as before, but the same friend) I'm both excited, and a little nervous at going back to the wonderful world of the tech startup, but the product looks good, is in an area that interests me, and the company appears good too. (plus I get a macbook pro out of the deal =)

That also means that I'm leaving my current gig, which also leaves me with mixed feelings. I like the people where I work right now - I really do. I like a lot of what is involved in working there. I definitely do not like driving 60 km each way every day through bad LA traffic each way (the new gig is less than half as far away), and I can do without having to deal with SQL Server, .net, Visual Studio and other Microsoft fun day in and day out. (out of respect to them, I will not be saying more than that, not only because I do like the people there, but also because I plan to maintain a relationship, both business and personal with the people there and the company)

When I know a little more about what I am doing at the new place, I will post more than a placeholder link to Steelcape.

To quote the film Yellow Submarine, "Once more unto the breach, dear meanies!"

St. Valentine's Day or Love or The Beatles Love or The Beatles 2.0

2007-02-14T00:51:00.000-08:00

Ok, the title is somewhat misleading in that I have very little if anything to comment about St. Valentine, nor the day we celebrate (or some of us celebrate), but since the Beatles released an "album" with the title of the word that Hallmark wants so badly to be associated with the day, I have a link of sorts.

I had actually forgotten that Love was released last year when I wrote my last post. (as well as Weird Al's latest album, which incidentally is his best since the early 90s - a surprisingly funny album throughout!) For those not in the know, Love is a soundtrack album to a Cirque de Soleil production involving Beatles songs. The soundtrack album is actually a mash-up of sorts - fragments of songs leading into each other, often with tracks actually assembled from many different songs. (eg: the drum track of Tomorrow Never Knows playing over Within You, Without You)

Basically critical reviews for the album fell into one of two categories: either it was too weird and inferior to the original releases, or it wasn't adventurous enough. (indeed, many tracks on the album are actually simply stereo remixes of the official releases) Of course, both points are correct. Surprisingly the album still (mostly) works. Some of the mashups work much better than one would expect. (especially the wonderful mashing of Drive My Car/The Word/What You're Doing/Savoy Truffle!) BTW: If you have a dvd player and a 5.1 setup, do yourself a favor and get the cd/dvd edition, and if you have a DVD-Audio player, you have no business listening to this album at all without that edition!

Of course, the idea of sampling songs in other ones is nothing particularly new to the rap/hip hop communities - but in the rock and roll community - the de facto mainstream of popular music today, it is pretty radical. For a band that hasn't really released new music in 36 years, it's a bit startling. (of course, the Grey Album a few years back was attacked by their music company, but that's another story)

Sampling, or personalizing of music is basically inevitable at this point. Like it or not, the ipod and its ubiquitous shuffle mode has changed the way people listen to music. While artists like the Beatles made the concept of a coherent collection of songs (aka an album) a viable art form for popular music in the 60s, that form is largely gone.

On one hand, it means that we will see fewer Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Roads, but on the other hand, how many albums are really good from start to the end? Also, have we EVER seen another Abbey Road or Sgt. Pepper by ANYONE?

However, while technology may have decimated the album as an art form, in an odd way, Love demonstrates an embrace of another inevitable consequence of modern technology - everyone who wants to be, is a sound engineer and a producer. Where the 1980s and the cassette technology (and even earlier the reel to reel recorders) allowed people to re-sequence albums and create the killer mix tapes - today we can go much further.

I actually started with mix tapes and compiling down my beloved Beatles LPs when I was four years old with my old trusty Fisher Price record player and tape recorders. Back then I would sequence for the maximal jarring effect. I would place She Loves You right next to Long Long Long, Helter Skelter next to For No One. I would also truncate songs to fit as many as possible onto the tapes. (the false ending of Strawberry Fields WAS the ending to me) A few years back I found some of my old tapes, and they held up much better than I expected, but thankfully I have improved my skills since then.

For my high school graduation present, I was given a SCSI CD-RW drive (the first rewritable CD burner on the market), and with that I really started to have fun with music.

One of my first projects was to reconstruct SMiLE as best as possible from what I had. (the Good Vibrations 5 disc set, and a few cassettes I had ordered over the internet of "harder to find" material) I carefully input the cassette tracks into the computer, attempted to reedit the tracks to flow better, and took a stab at reassembling the album as it might have been finished. Given what I had in 1997, I'm still pretty happy with the results. (I still listen to it on occasion) However, the finished release from Brian Wilson in 2004 eclipsed my own efforts... thankfully I might add.

Of course, given that my main musical obsession is the Beatles, it would stand that my main musical remixing/editing projects would be Beatles oriented.

A few years back, the Beatles decided to put out another attempt at Let It Be (which to be fair, was a flawed album), and I think I already mentioned that it was very much a missed opportunity. I stand by that. In fact, I felt so strongly that I took my own stab at fixing the album from the material I had access to.

For obvious reasons I will not post up the album itself, but I can give the "recipe" for what I call "Let it Be... As Nature Intended" (and not to sound too immodest, but I think it's a better flowing album than either "Let It Be", "Let It Be... Naked" or even any of the original "Get Back" LPs) Indeed, from easily available recordings (ie: the officially released ones) you can get pretty close to the album I enjoy.

I compiled this album in late 2005 early 2006.

Let It Be... As Nature Intended

01 - Two Of Us - Recorded January 31, 1969 (take 11) (stereo)
Prepended with dialogue from January 21, 1969 ("I dig a pigmy...")
Track taken from the "Let It Be" LP

This is the best recording of the acoustic incarnation of the song in the
mix that appears on the "Let It Be" LP. Only the unreleased "Get Back"
LPs selected a different take of this song for inclusion.

02 - Don't Let Me Down - Recorded January 30, 1969 (The "Rooftop Concert", 1st version) (stereo)
Prepended with dialogue from January 22, 1969 ("... give me the courage to come screaming in")
Dialogue taken from the unreleased "Get Back" LP, track taken from "other sources".

This is a reconstruction of the first rooftop concert performance of this song.
Primarily this derives from the "Let It Be... Naked" track, with additional sources
edited in in order to restore the proper flubbed verse. The "Get Back" LPs
selected an earlier studio version of this song from January 22, 1969, and the version
released as a B-Side to "Get Back" instead derived from another studio version from
January 28, 1969.

03 - I've Got A Feeling - Recorded January 30, 1969 (The "Rooftop Concert", 1st version) (stereo)

This is essentially the same as found on the "Let It Be" LP. "Get Back" selected
an earlier studio recording of this, while "Let It Be... Naked" had a version which
was constructed with pieces of the 1st and 2nd rooftop recordings of this track.

04 - One After 909 - Recorded January 30, 1969 (The "Rooftop Concert") (stereo)
Count-in and "Danny Boy" coda from "other sources", track taken from the "Let It Be... Naked" LP

Both "Let It Be" LPs as well as the "Get Back" LPs use this version of the song, but only
"Let It Be... Naked" has a mix where John Lennon's "Yes, she did" reply is audible. This is
mixed in with a rawer mix at the start and the end to restore the actual sound of the performance.
("Let It Be.. Naked" mixed/edited it out)

05 - Dig A Pony - Recorded January 30, 1969 (The "Rooftop Concert") (stereo)
Track taken from "other sources"

This is a reconstruction of the rooftop concert performance of this song with the opening
and closing "All I Want Is You" lines restored. Otherwise this is essentially the same
as on "Let It Be". "Get Back" used a different studio recording of this song, while
"Let It Be... Naked" used an alternate mix of this same performance.

06 - Get Back - Recorded January 30, 1969 (The "Rooftop Concert", 4th and final version) (stereo)
Track originated from Anthology 3, with other sources used to flesh out the ending

While "Get Back" and both "Let It Be"s use a combination of a January 27 and January 28
studio recording (also used for the single) in various forms, this is the final rooftop
performance of the song. This is mostly presented on "Anthology 3" with the final lines
faded out. Oddly enough, "Let It Be" tacks on the lines missing from "Anthology 3" onto
its version of "Get Back". This is a reconstruction of the actual end of the rooftop
concert with John's lines about hoping they passed the audition restored to its proper
place.

07 - Maggie Mae - Recorded January 24, 1969 (stereo)
Track taken from the "Let It Be" LP

This is exactly the same as it is on "Let It Be" and the "Get Back" LPs.

08 - For You Blue - Basic track recorded January 25, 1969 (stereo)
Prepended with dialogue from January 8, 1969 ("Queen Says No..")
Dialogue taken from "other sources", track taken from the "Let It Be... Naked" LP

"Get Back" and the "Let It Be" LPs all use this recording, though the latter 2
(as well as "Let It Be.. As Nature Intended") use a version with a re-recorded
vocal track from George dating from early 1970. This is of course a violation
of the spirit of the projects, where no overdubs should be allowed, but of course,
it is not the only violation. Indeed, NO version of the LP was actually
void of studio trickery (see notes for track 14). The dialog on the front is also in
front of the version on "Let It Be", but here it is much more audible.

09 - Across The Universe - Basic track recorded Feburary 8, 1968 (take 8 remix) (stereo)
Prepended with studio chatter from Feburary 8, 1968
Dialogue taken from "other sources", track taken
from the "Let It Be... Naked" LP

This ended up on the 2nd version of "Get Back" and the "Let It Be"s because
it was to be featured in the film in a rehearsal version. However, because
the Beatles only did rough rehearsals, there was no proper version from the
Get Back sessions available so it was decided to use the existing studio
take from 1968 (released in a modified form at the end of 1969 for a charity
album). Every version of the album used a different mix, and none of them
went with the original mix (not even the charity album). The original mix
featured teenaged fans the Beatles brought in for harmonies on the
"Nothing's Gonna Change My World" choruses, as well as prominent backwards
guitar effects. The charity release of the track added "wildlife" effects
and sped up the recording while dropping the guitar effects as well as
the backing vocals. "Let It Be" was remixed by Phil Spector, and he
slowed the track down, stripped off the backwards effects as well as
the backing vocals and then added a choir and orchestra in early 1970.
"Let It Be.. Naked" simply put out the recording at its correct speed
and removed the backwards guitars and backing female vocals. This is
very close to the mix on the 2nd "Get Back" LP, but the backing vocals
are more audible in that mix. This is prepended with the actual
studio chatter that preceded the recording of the song.

10 - I Me Mine - Basic track recorded January 3, 1970 (take 16) (stereo)
Prepended with studio chatter from January 3, 1970
Dialogue taken from the 2nd attempt at the "Get Back" LP, track taken from the "Anthology 3" set

Once again, because a rehearsal of this song was to be included in the
film "Let It Be", a version of the song had to be included on the LP.
So in early 1970 (at the last actual Beatles recording session) the
Beatles (minus John) recorded a proper studio version of the track.
The 2nd "Get Back" LP included the track essentially as was recorded
including studio chatter before it (indeed, what is on here is essentially
the same), while for "Let It Be", Phil Spector both looped the track
to artificially lengthen it as well as adding orchestration and a choir.
For "Let It Be... Naked", the track was again looped (but in a different
manner) to lengthen it. This is the track as it was actually recorded,
at its correct length.

11 - Mailman, Bring Me No More Blues - Recorded January 29, 1969 (reedited/remixed in 1984) (stereo)
Track taken from the "Anthology 3" set

During the Get Back sessions the Beatles frequently would perform "oldies"
and contemporary songs from artists they admired. This is a cover of an
obscure Buddy Holly B-Side. This was originally edited (heavily) and mixed
for the aborted "Sessions" LP in 1984. Compared to the actual recording
this is very heavily edited/looped, but still provides a good break
in mood and does show a side of the Get Back Sessions that neither "Let
It Be" LP does.

12 - The Long And Winding Road - Recorded January 26, 1969 (stereo)
Prepended with dialogue from January 31, 1969 from just prior to take 23 of "Let It Be"
("Should we giggle..")
Dialogue taken from the unreleased "Get Back" LP, track taken from the "Anthology 3" set

This is essentially as it appears on the unreleased "Get Back" LPs. For "Let It Be"
Phil Spector took the basic track, and overdubbed an orchestra and female choir.
Reportedly when Paul heard this version he cried... and not in the good way.
"Let It Be.. Naked" utilized take 19 from January 31, 1969 instead of this recording.

13 - Dig It - Recorded January 26, 1969 (stereo)
Appended with dialogue from January 24, 1969 ("that was can you dig it...")
Track taken from the unreleased "Get Back" LP

Another hallmark of the Get Back sessions were its improvisational jams.
This recording of Dig It is a prime example of one. This is taken directly
from the "Get Back" LP (2nd version), while "Let It Be" truncated the recording
further significantly. While the full recording is close to 16 minutes in length,
this is the final approximately 4 minutes of the recording (much of the
first 12 minutes is marred by a soon-to-be step-daughter of Paul's wailing
repeatedly) The dialogue at the end is actually from an earlier version of
"Dig It" from January 24. Yes, even though this was a largely free-form
jam, multiple versions that can be identified as "Dig It" were recorded
during the sessions.

14 - Let It Be - basic track recorded January 31, 1969 (take 27a) (stereo)
Track taken from the "Let It Be" LP

This is taken directly from the "Let It Be" LP. While all versions of both
"Get Back" and "Let It Be" (and indeed the single as well) all derive from
the same original recording, none of them have been released without some
modification (even the original attempt at the "Get Back" LP!). In March
of 1969 George Harrison recorded new guitar solos for the track. This
was used in favor of the original guitar solo for both versions of the
"Get Back" LP as well as the single and "Let It Be.. Naked", though each
with significant mix differences. In early 1970 many more overdubs were
added including full orchestration added by George Martin, new drum tracks,
and yet another new guitar solo. Only the "Let It Be" LP, under Phil Spector's
direction, availed itself of the newer overdubs. In addition to using the extra
overdubs, Phil Spector looped the 1970 guitar solo to lengthen it. In
this case, even though it violates the spirit of the "Get Back" session,
this is the best version of the track, so it is taken directly from the
"Let It Be" LP.

Anyway, that's the album I now listen to in place of all of the Let It Be incarnations. I have my own album now that has the essential rooftop concert tracks (in order), side conversations that flow, no overdubs (except when they truly enhance the songs), no strings on Long And Winding Road, and a flow that to my ears is wonderful.

I may also post up the "recipe" for a 3 disc set of the Get Back sessions I laboriously compiled (compressing 96 hours of raw session tapes down to a listenable 4 hour set), or a BBC Sessions set I am in the process of compiling on the side right now.

Now, I'm much too much of a traditionalist to attempt to remix the tracks in a truly creative manner - nor could I even conceive of mixing and matching different artists - but there are those who are that audacious out there.

The genie is out of the bottle, and in an odd way the Beatles are, if not ahead of the curve, somewhat along for the ride with Love in showing the fact that like the web 2.0 technologies have made the web consumers redefine the internet sites they visit in their image, ipod/dap and computer technologies are enabling music fans to redefine the music they Love.

...And a happy new year, let's hope it's a good one without any fear

2007-01-21T19:36:00.000-08:00

Another year, another 365 and some change days, and another rotation around good 'ol Sol.

Another job that is coming to an end at my volition, another long amount of time of working incessantly, and another few semesters of missing deadlines to file my thesis.

Given my current job, I have basically avoided writing about politics, though that prohibition may be ending (since my job is) in the not too distant, future, so be warned.

In terms of music, here's what I would recommend in terms of new releases:

Paul Simon's aptly titled Surprise. A year ago, if I were asked to make a list of (musical) artists I really have enjoyed, but seem to be in an artistic slump, Paul Simon would be near the top of the list. It's not that I didn't find some tracks to enjoy on Rhythm of the Saints, Songs From Capeman or even You're The One, but nothing on those albums had the impact of his Graceland LP to say nothing of Hearts and Bones. Indeed, the album in many ways feel like the marriage of those two great LPs with a bit of the quasi-electronic soundscapes from U2's albums The Unforgettable Fire and The Joshua Tree. I'm not saying Surprise is as good as either Graceland nor Hearts and Bones, but it gets close, and that was a very pleasant Surprise indeed. A/A-
Bruce Springsteen - We Shall Overcome : The Pete Seeger Sessions - Yes, this is a bit of a cheat since no songs (on the original issue) are actually new, or even written by the Boss. However, much like the above choice, here's another artist that seemed to have hit a long period of artistic decline that still has a lot of fight in him. Here's a very political album, in a lot of ways like Neil Young's album from last year, but by choosing songs from decades if not centuries ago to express his view of the world today, and by making the album rock despite the absence of much of the traditional sound/etc for what normally is considered rock and roll, this album actually elevates above most protest rock, and becomes quite timeless. Anyway, how hard is to avoid smiling and rocking a bit when you hear the band come crashing in on Mary Don't You Weep? A-
Neko Case - Fox Confessor Brings The Flood - When my friend, Matteen, first pointed me to this album, I only really heard a female version of Jeff Buckley's Grace album. (in terms of the sound) However, I admit I was surprised how much of the album holds together well even after a great deal of listens. Also, it's really hard to deny the beauty of Star Witness. (incidentally, if you have only heard this album by Neko Case, I recommend tracking down her earlier, and slightly better album, Blacklisted) A-
Bob Dylan - Modern Times - Dylan wasn't in any danger of artistic decline... his last 2 albums basically guaranteed that. However, while I would not call this a decline, it simply isn't as good as Love and Theft, the immediate predecessor. (or as immediate as any album can be that preceded it by 5 years) There's a lot to like on here, but it all seems like it has been said before, and better. Still, this is one of the best albums of last year. B+
Beck - The Information - Not quite as good as Sea Change, but definitely better than Guero. Not everything works, but most does. In many ways this is actually a good step forward since Beck is somehow figuring out how to integrate his hipster genre bending tendencies from his earlier LPs with the weary maturity he has been showing more recently. B+
Neil Young - Living With War - This is an album that won't age all that well, but compared to other political protest albums that explicitly are products of their respective eras, it will age better than most. Compared to an album like John Lennon's Sometime In New York, it will certainly fare better since the basic songs are better. Where John Lennon had forgotten to bring forward the music to match the lyrics (and often sacrificed the power of the lyrics in favor of explicitly stating his messages), Neil Young (for the most part) is able to marry his anger with good songs, and usually good lyrics. Let's Impeach The President especially is a song that may be enjoyable long after George W. Bush has left the Oval Office, which if much more than I can say about John Sinclair or We're All Water from Sometime In New York. B

That's what I can recall at the moment on the music front.

On the movie front, the only real movie I really wanted to see going into 2006 was to see what Bryan Singer did with Superman.
To give some quick background, every day I went to preschool I would dress in cowboy boots (not red, but close enough for a 3 year old) and would wear a Superman cape. I actually surprised the head of the school when I would dress differently on Halloweens. I loved the George Reeves Adventures of Superman series, and above even that, I adored Christopher Reeve's Superman films. (at the time, there was Superman and Superman 2... Superman 3 thankfully came out a little late to ruin my childhood memories, and I was already mostly out of that phase when Superman IV came out to ruin any remaining memories)
I've been following the developments of all of the truly wretched ideas of brining back Kal-El to the silver screen over the last decade+, and despite how much I love Superman, I was generally glad to see the projects fail miserably since the ideas were not worthy of the last son of Krypton.
Still, when I heard that Bryan Singer was signed on and had promised to basically make a new Superman film in the same basic universe that Richard Donner had created with Superman The Movie in 1978, I started to become interested and, even a bit hopeful.
For my money, those first 2 Superman films (even with all of the problems that plagued Superman 2 which are well documented on a myriad websites, and now even several DVDs) are the greatest adaptations of comic books to film ever done. I haven't (amazingly) seen the X-Men films, so they may also be great, but I have seen the Batman films from the 80s through the new Batman Begins. I have seen a great deal of other comic adaptations, and while some are good (Batman Begins especially), none of them touch those first two Superman films. I think it had something to do with Marlon Brando's first line in the film, "this is no fantasy". By making those films REAL, and by giving Superman a real heart (no doubt Christopher Reeve's amazing work helped more than a bit), the films felt real. Once you've sold the reality of the universe, and made the audience care, you can do a lot, and those 2 films did.
In many ways Bryan Singer did the impossible with his film, Superman Returns. He gave us a new film based in Richard Donner's universe... for the most part. This may sound like nitpicking, but on more than a few accounts I felt the film missed the mark on the "this is no fantasy" benchmark.
The opening flight through space in the opening credits in no way looked like a flight through space. It looked like a flight through neat drawings rendered as CGI. I know much of the visions of flying through space in the original Superman film were created using simple fluid tricks, and other optical trickery, but they were less showy, and less obviously fake. I'm no astronomer, but since when can you have a planet with 2 rings that intersect each other at perfect right angles?? On top of that, the Daily Planet did not feel like a real newspaper office. The attempt to give Metropolis a distinctive feel did make the architecture/design interesting, but it also took away from the illusion that it was a real, functioning city. In Superman, it was clear were were looking at New York City in the late 1970s. The Daily Planet office in Donner's films looked like a newspaper office should look.
The other issues with the film are primarily focused on the basic scheme from Lex Luthor and the pacing problems with the film that basically everyone who has criticised the film have already pointed out.
I also need to point out that the score of the film really does suffer in comparison to the original film's score. While I don't expect the film to be able to outdo what is in my view one of the best film scores of all time, I do expect something better than we had here. When the film sticks to the actual music written by Williams (like in the opening credits), it feels great. When it attempts to modify the themes (like at the end of the airplane crash sequence) it ruins the mood of the theme since it doesn't ever seem to properly resolve, and in a triumphant scene, unresolved musical themes seem very wrong. Worst of all though is that the new music written for the film seems very generic and barely worthy of being background music in a much weaker film. I suppose I could have respected an attempt to create entirely new music in the film and just accept that it won't be as memorable. I also could respect what Thorne did with the Superman 2 soundtrack by simply recycling the themes verbatim from Superman 1, and only writing what new music had to be written to flesh out the film. However, this film not only produces a lot of new music and new themes, but it also has moments of Williams' themes. That's probably the worst combination since it brings the quality of the two respective scores in sharp contrast. Unfortunately, that's not a favorable contrast.
However, I did say that this mostly resides within Donner's universe, and it does. Superman himself seems to be essentially the Superman that Christopher Reeve played. Indeed, all of the actors seem to do an excellent job in the film. Even Bosworth does a good job as Lois Lane even if she really looks to young to play Lois Lane at the age she should have been in the 1978 film, much less a 5 year older Lane. However, I can easily forgive that since she does a good enough acting job to compensate. The parts of the film with the romantic triangle and the other new figure (if you've seen the film, you know who I mean) actually played the best despite the fact that usually such plot twists are generally poisonous for such iconic characters. Indeed, for my money, the best moment in the entire film was watching Kal-El quote his father (Jor-El) while taking to another in the last scene of the film. Again, I am being cryptic to avoid spoiling anything for those who haven't seen it and plan to. However, suffice to say, in that moment, they nailed the heart of the universe that Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner created nearly 30 years ago.
Really what we have here is a film that promises the possibility of a much better sequel. The hardest elements are in place since the actors are excellent, the director has the talent, and the vision, if tweaked, actually works. Since I understand that X-Men 2 is much better than X-Men, and I believe I heard Bryan Singer saying he wanted to make a Star Trek II to Superman Returns' Star Trek I, I hold out hope that the last son of Krypton may continue on on the silver screen for some time. B

Brevity is the soul of wit - it takes one to know one!

2006-10-26T16:53:00.000-07:00

Slashdot linked to an article from Wired on Very Short Stories.

The premise is simple, various authors and other famous figures were asked to write stories of a length of exactly 6 words.

Some of them are pretty clever.

For example:

"Epitaph: Foolish humans, never escaped Earth" - Vernor Vinge

"Kirby had never eaten toes before" - Kevin Smith

"The baby's blood type? Human, mostly" - Orson Scott Card

Anyway, here are some I think were left out:

"Somebody set us up, the bomb!" - (bad translation)

"Author: Paid by the word? Doh!" - me

"A bad vocabulary is very... bad" - me

"Gilligan: Three Hour Tour? Yeah right!" - me

Yes, the quote at the top (adapted from the Simpsons) is actually a story, and its sequel.*

Does anyone know of any other stories that should have been included?

* Yes, I know that the actual exchange between Lisa and Homer has a different line from Lisa that prompts Homer to reply, "it takes one to know one", but what Lisa actually says is along the same lines. (or close lines)

Cold turkey has got me on the run...

2006-04-28T00:10:00.000-07:00

Really, I'm quite boring in many many ways. As many of you who know me personally, I never drink, never smoke, never do anything recreational with "chemicals", never even had a single cup of coffee! (and yes, I mean I don't mean it's rare - I just don't do it at all) That said, there are still some addictions and other habits of mine I haven't been happy with for a long time.
According to my parents, my first word as an infant was a baby-word for Pepsi. I've been drinking both the diet and regular varieties of sodas for pretty much my whole life. Indeed, in recent years, caffeine free diet Pepsi has basically been my nearly sole source of liquid in my "diet". To give an idea, I think it was 3 weeks ago when I estimated I took in nearly 300 ounces of diet soda over the course of the day. (between diet sodas ordered at fast food drive thrus, the cans of diet Pepsi, and bottles of diet soda at the gym and such)
2 years ago I decided to stop drinking regular soda, and I surprisingly found that easy to do (and today, regular soda tastes too syrupy to me). More recently, nearly a year ago I suddenly lost my appetite and found myself losing weight pretty rapidly. Since I was about 5 or 6 years old I had been at least somewhat overweight, moreso in recent years. However, thanks to the sudden loss of appetite which is still mostly the case, coupled with going to the gym (I still do!), I find myself not overweight for the first time in my "adult" life. I'm not exactly skinny, but according to medical definitions, I'm actually pretty much in the middle of "normal" weight, and amazingly I'm a good deal beneath the median weight for my age and height. (which really is more a comment on the median than myself)
Anyway, in many ways, both of those changes were easier than trying to give up soda. The regular soda wasn't a big deal since I didn't drink regular soda all that often. And the loss
of weight, as dramatic as it is (I've lost nearly 1/3rd of my body weight in the last year), was in large part a passive change that somewhat happened to me.
This last Saturday night, I decided to quit drinking soda cold turkey. Since then I've been training myself to drink water (scarily, I really wasn't at all used to drinking it, and I had to force myself on the 1st 2 days to take in enough liquid to make sure I wasn't dehydrating myself.
Well, it's Thursday night, and I'm holding up, and haven't had a single drop of Soda since Saturday night. The horrible headaches I had been suffering through seem to be subsiding. I'm not sure if those are some forms of withdrawal symptoms, or if they are stress related. I'm fairly sure they aren't from caffeine withdrawal since I often went days without it before (only drinking decaf soda) without any ill effects. Still, it was pretty miserable with the headaches coupled with a good deal of fatigue. Whatever the situation, it seems to be getting better.
I'm not saying I never will drink soda again - I imagine I will, but I want it to be something I drink on occasion, not on every occasion. I don't know if the stuff in diet soda is as harmful as some claim it is, but I do know that it can't be that good, and if nothing else, it's more expensive than water. (plus people look weird at me when I drink bottles of diet soda while working out... though that could be due to a plethora of other reasons)
Anyway, if this is what I go through trying to give up soda, I'm REALLY glad I decided long ago I would never experiment with drugs, smoking, booze or anything else. I have an addictive personality, and it's usually best for me not to get involved with that which brings no real positives.
What's the point of this post? Well, for those out there who are like I was: there is hope. If you keep forcing yourself to drink water, eventually you get used to it! Also, I'm getting a really inflated sense of self-confidence in so many changes in the last year that I seem to be keeping. Yes, I'm really lucky that this is the great obstacle that I am facing - I know many deal with far greater trials in their lives. My older cousins struggle with addictions to really heinous chemicals, and that's a good deal of the reason why I decided years ago to be "boring".

I need a fix 'cause I'm goin' down

2006-04-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

Ok, no real chance of me going down. (sorry to get a few hopes up there)

However, I could use a fix. Indeed, a fix would be rather nice.

In today's world, a segment of the internet (and by extension the world) has been obsessed with the latest release from the Beatles, the 2nd volume of the American LPs. Mind you, this is the 2nd volume to a release I originally dismissed as rumor.

Well, it seems (like most Beatles releases of the last... well, ever) that the release was messed up at the factory where they used the wrong 'mixes' on 2 of the 4 discs.

In response to this, Capitol/EMI is suggesting that people who buy the flawed copies can simply exchange them back to Capitol/EMI when the fixed versions are available. (a process that will involve the consumer requesting a package to send the 2 discs to them with, the consumer receiving the package, then sending the 2 discs, then waiting for Capitol/EMI to mail them back the corrected discs)

This release is mostly intended towards fanatics and old-school Beatles fans who remember listening to the Beatles' albums on the generally inferior American incarnations. However, given how wretched the standard Beatles cds sound, and the fact that the cds do not (for the most part) offer both the mono and stereo mixes of the songs, there is some worth to this new set (like Volume 1). That worth is seriously diminished when the mono mixes are not in fact anything more than the stereo mix added together to make a mono mix though.

The Beatles' stereo mixes are worthwhile because (generally) they are cleaner, and show more detail to the recording. The mono mixes are worthwhile because for the most part, they actually had the Beatles themselves involved in the mix decisions, and were the mixes the most time was spent on. (up through "The Beatles" double LP)

This would be academic, but there are actually pretty striking differences between the mono and stereo mixes in many cases. "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" is a lot trippier in the mono mix. "Help!" has a different lead vocal. "Revolution" has a lot more muscle to the sound with the guitars mixed up to the hilt. You get the point.

Now, basically, I own everything I can get my grubby little hands on with the word Beatles on it. However, because of this, I am holding off buying this set. I'd actually like to get it. The American release of "Rubber Soul" is actually really nice. They substituted some of the harder songs on that record with left-overs from "Help!" and dropped other harder songs leaving a very acoustic/folk rock affair that's a really nice listen.

Something tells me that the same can be found on the internets mastered from vinyl that actually sounds a good deal better than the new cds, and actually has the proper mono mix of this record...

Until the fix is in, and the only version of the set available has the proper mixes for the discs, I think I may ponder the existence of these fabled vinyl transfers...

... If you took all the girls I knew when I was single, and brought them all together for one night...

2006-04-10T22:48:00.000-07:00

In internet terms, I'm pretty old.

There are those who have been dealing with the good 'ol TCP protocols longer than I, but I do remember when the "web" was considered a fringe segment of the net, not for serious work. (and now my job involves maintaining/upgrading/fixing a web service... go figure?)

When I first got access to "the internet" (sometime between '93 and '94 I think) I connected via a terminal emulation session onto a Vax machine where I could access text-mode lynx for web browsing, or more usefully I could use gopher. On one hand that means I'm pretty comfortable around the lower-level workings of the 'net, and more familiar with the older standards (usenet, irc, more basic http/html, telnet, etc), but the newer protocols/applications/cultures throw me.

I resisted instant messengers for a while, knowing they would take up too much time (and indeed they do). More recently I attempted to avoid the social networking sites because they're a little too "modern" for an old-timer like myself. However, a few months ago (or was it a year ago?) I succumed finally and put out a digital shingle. (how's that for mixed metaphors?)

Generally I have been a bit freaked out with the entire culture associated with it... I still remember how things worked in the pre-internet computer bulliten board days (ok, they didn't REALLY predate the internet, but for me, they did). Back then it was largely collections of socially maladjusted ultra-geeky young males. (and yes, I was the leader of the geeks!) So when I get on the newer social networking sites, I find them to be... well, social. I was innundated with requests from total strangers to be added as friend. (apparently some bizarre computer algorithm decided I was a "cool new person" for a day or so and felt compelled to tell a lot of people) I'm adjusting better a bit, and I stay on mostly because I have younger cousins involved on such sites, and I want to keep an eye on them every once in a while.

Still, the experiences have afforded me some nice reunions with actual friends that I haven't seen in ages (as does instant messenger protocols for that matter), and today I accidentally found out what happened to my first crush. After all the melodrama, angst, sound and fury (all of which signified nothing), I can't say how good it feels to find out she's married, seems happy, and then realize that I'm really happy for her. So right now, despite all of the headaches, culture shocks, and other oddities I have experienced on such sites, I'll consider them to be a positive. (even if the knowledge that she's married makes me feel old!)

Yes, I really should have had at LEAST this level of emotional maturity... say 13 years ago... but right now I'll take solace in reaching it at all. (yay for lowered expectations!)

Anyway, it's not like learning what actually happened could "match my sweet imagination. And everything looks worse in black and white"

(BTW: I fixed a typo or two I noticed in earlier posts... the creator of the West Wing was Aaron Sorkin, and the lyric to "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" on Abbey Road is "And so I quit the police department, and got myself a steady job"... the proper job line was from an outtake from the Get Back sessions if memory serves)

And so I quit the police department, and got myself a steady job...

2006-02-03T18:41:00.000-08:00

Didn't anybody tell her, didn't anybody see? Oh wait, no... the rest of the song doesn't apply. Still, yes, the title is true, I am "properly" employed. I started working as a database administrator/software developer for a political consulting firm in Burbank this Wednesday. The job looks good, and the environment is nice, even if the environment requires approximately 3 hours of commuting each day, which the other kind of environment isn't as happy about. (I plan to try to reduce the commute one way or another... hopefully my giant magnet I'm working on will pull Burbank sufficiently close)

I also had a large blog ready a few days ago to update on everything else, but alas, it was lost in a blogger mishap. So either I can rewrite it, or pull a Superman, and whirl around the earth fast enough so I can go back in time to stop any changes from happening. The latter is intellectually easier, and cooler, so if anyone needs me, I'll be attempting to power walk fast enough to spin Earth backwards... Wish me luck. (or don't.. because I can also add in making you not read this blog retroactively to my list of things to do when I go back in time)

In case anyone is wondering (in case anyone reads this), the fact I've had to be awake in the day and asleep at night has made me even more loopy than usual. Though it has made "Sunday's on the phone to Monday, Tuesday's on the phone to me" slightly more coherent to me.

You were the way to the truth when you said 'All You Need Is Love'

2005-12-08T02:03:00.000-08:00

25 years ago today.

I don't have much to say except that between cramming for and taking my midterm (on the last day of classes??) today, I will be listening to the words and music of Mr. John Lennon.

We all shine on

It's a long way between chaos and creation...

2005-10-18T11:12:00.000-07:00

(note: I actually wrote this close to a month ago, but for some reason I've found myself pretty busy and distracted, so I had not gotten around to posting it until now)

Even though it has only been out in the states ~~since Tuesday~~ for quite a while now, I've been listening to Paul McCartney's newest ~~for about a week now~~ for quite a while now. (yes, I purchased the deluxe edition ~~on Tuesday~~, you guessed it, quite a while ago)

The most important conclusion I can reach at this point is that I need to quit “reviewing” items when I have not left enough time for me to get to know them.

In a (shallow) way, I'm starting to see listening to new music like falling in love (or not falling in love).

Sometimes I will immediately “fall in love” with some music. It was this way with the Beatles when I was three years old and my uncle played me “Love Me Do” (yes, I remember this vividly.. I even found that very cassette he played for me that day about a decade ago) I was hooked from the first note, and I have never (well, except for that weird 25 month period) looked back.

Most albums or music usually is in the category of “love at first sight” or not. It only took me a single listen to know I loved Paul McCartney's prior studio LPs. (“Flaming Pie” and “Driving Rain”) Of course, often what may grab one's attention on the first few listens can soon lose its appeal. (thankfully, I generally don't remember examples for obvious reasons)

Of course, there are exceptions. There are times when the music strikes me as nothing special (or worse) the first several times I hear it, and only after a while, do I really begin to appreciate it. Nearly anything (good) Bob Dylan has released fits in this category, ditto with Leonard Cohen.

Even Beck, who normally releases music that is wonderful even on the first listen, released an album in 2002, “Sea Change”, which did not really impress me on its first listen. However, the more I made myself listen to it, the more I appreciated the gorgeous melancholy of it, and the more I respected the courage for a man who so long hid any real sentiment or emotions behind massive doses of humor, irony and sarcasm release a completely emotionally naked and entirely downbeat album. I now consider it Beck's best album (and probably the best new album released so-far this decade).

“Pet Sounds” did not impress me all that much the first time I listened to it. It's not that I disliked the album, but it seemed overrated the first time I heard it. It took a while for me to enter the world that Brian Wilson created for that album, to get in the groove of his arrangements that seem to have been entirely out of time for 1966, or really any year. The lyrics seemed trite on the first listen, but when I started to appreciate the earnestness, and the emotional direction of the album, I began to even love the lyrics. (Consider that the album begins with “Wouldn't It Be Nice” and ends with “Caroline, No”... that's one amazing journey!)

The reason I post this is that sometimes when I “review” items, I do so before I have fully decided if I am in love with the music or not. The first time I heard the Stones' album, “A Bigger Bang”, it sounded a lot like a rehash of “Bridges to Babylon” or any of their other post-”Dirty Work” efforts. It sounded like they were largely going through the motions. Many more listens started to reveal how unforced most of the album is.

With “A Bigger Bang”, they aren't trying hard to sound like the Stones; they are simply being the Stones. Still, not every song works (especially the ballads “Streets of Love” & “Biggest Mistake”), but everything else generally does. They also seem to have reconnected with the edge and attitude (albeit edge and attitude tempered with their age) of the group that famously sang in 1968, “I can see you're just 15 years old. I don't need no ID. I can see you're so far from home, but it's no hanging matter, it's no capital crime.” Ok, nothing on “A Bigger Bang” has that level of sleaze, but it doesn't have to. “A Bigger Bang” doesn't eclipse their work from their prime, but it is worthy music from one of the best Rock and Roll bands of all time.

“Chaos And Creation In The Backyard” thankfully wasn't something I tried to proclaim a verdict on earlier. It really didn't strike me as anything spectacular the first several times I heard it. Indeed, it seemed quirky, and somewhat slight. There's very little that grabs you on the first listen on the album (save for “A Fine Line”), but this is the epitome of an album that requires a lot of listens to appreciate.

This is a weird album, and seems to be Paul following his muse without much regard for what will sell well. The press for the album calls it the successor to “McCartney” 1 & II (his earlier solo albums that also happened to be recorded largely with Paul playing every instrument, much like the new one). However, this album frankly doesn't seem like the other two. It sounds like a normal album with a normal band, even if this is largely just Paul multi tracking himself. The songs themselves are mostly low-key, indeed there are really only two up-tempo tracks: “A Fine Line”, and “Promise To You Girl.”

Much like “Pet Sounds” (not to imply this is as good as “Pet Sounds”), it takes a bunch of listens to get into the style and groove of the album. The tracks may be low-key and seem simple, but there are some interesting things going on. With the exception of the track “This Never Happened Before”, which reminds me a lot of an attempt to sound like Burt Baccharach (in a bad way) and “English Tea”, which for some odd reason sounds very much like Paul trying to imitate the Rutles imitating him; every track has at least something going for it - something that shows Paul McCartney giving some kind of effort, or doing something unusual.

There may be fewer highlights on “Chaos” than on “Driving Rain” or “Flaming Pie”, but the highlights are just as good as on either of those albums (especially the George Harrison tribute-esque “Friends to Go”, and the wonderful “Follow Me”). Even with fewer highlights though, there are far fewer tracks that are clearly filler. Indeed, after listening to the album for a week, I can only really find two tracks that I generally will skip. (the ones I mentioned prior) Even “Flaming Pie” had 3-4 songs that were pretty clearly filler, and I still consider that album to be the best album he released since the Beatles.

So the question I wanted answered before the album was released was if Paul's streak continues. It turns out that yes, his streak continues; but it continues in odd and unpredictable ways. Maybe that's for the best. For Paul McCartney to be able to surprise and even somewhat challenge me; for Paul to create a good album that isn't obviously good on the first listen is simply amazing. Further note: I'm still listening to this album an awful lot now about a month since I first heard it. The album has staying power, and I think I'm in love. (Grade: A-)

Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones, as long as you can put out music like this, PLEASE keep at it.

(and as a further further note, I am not paid by the Stones nor Paul McCartney, this shilling is entirely gratis from me.. not that I wouldn't mind being paid by either or both)

The buck stops?!?!?

2005-09-15T03:01:00.000-07:00

He may try to weasel out of it and may not follow through on actually doing anything to make things better in the future, but... he claimed on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 that he does take responsibility for the problems with the federal response to Katrina.

I had hypothesized to myself in the last week or two that if President Bush actually accepted responsibility for the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina, that it would so astound liberals like myself that we would be shocked into silence for at least a short time, and um.

I told you before, you can't do that!

2005-09-15T02:33:00.000-07:00

Yes, I am reverting to yet another bad habit of mine... replying to comments on a blog post by a main post. (it makes me look more active than I am!)

I think you should be full and blunt on your blog. It is your site, your world. And besides, 30 years from now when you look back you'll regret not writing out all those "personal" things because you won't remember them.

May I suggest creating an anonymous blog where you do go all out and blunt?

I'm as blunt as I feel comfortable being.

A good rule of thumb when blogging is to assume the person you would least like to read your blog is indeed reading your blog.

You also need to assume that even if you are in theory anonymous, that you can be found out (which is why I don't post to my more anonymous blog).

You further should assume that anything you write can come back to haunt you in the future.

That's correct, my ill-informed rants and plethora of typos will stay with me until the end of the internet (or longer).

Beyond protecting myself, I don't want to involve people in my life without them asking to be. I decided to start up this blog, and post under my own name. I decided to open up to the “unwashed masses” (thankfully there aren't many as the site logs indicate). Family and friends of mine did not decide to. It's beyond unfair for me to have my decision impact them. (of course, it may, but I would prefer it not to)

Also, I'd like you to elaborate on why our government sucks so much in the New Orleans situation. I realize the military took 4-5 days to get in, but they had to mobilize. I'm sure they didn't take so long to spite the poor N.O. folks.

This was a huge disaster and fixing it right away is almost impossible when it was a surprise.

Others have documented the catastrophe of the governmental response to Katrina far better than I have or could have. My problems involve inadequately slow respones, poor planning, poor execution, a decimation of FEMA, redirecting funds away from projects which MIGHT have been able to prevent or mitigate such a catastrophe, and when the pressure comes on, the greatest effort from the Federal government seems to be one to shift blame away.

Note: Local officials and local government also seriously messed up here too. I focus on the feds because A) dealing with this disaster is frankly beyond the ability of state and more local government and B) because Louisiana and Mississippi officials don't purport to represent me, and I have no real influence over them – the federal government however, IS my government. In addition a President whose primary argument for election in 2004 was one of safety and security failed pretty miserably at providing either.

Katrina was not really a surprise. We knew it was going to hit days in advance. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security knew. Shoot, even George W. Bush knew (he declared a state of emergency on the day before it hit) about Katrina. We effectively had no warning for 9/11, but we did have a heads up for Katrina. I am not a military expert, but I do know that there was no good reason why it took 4-5 days to get a federal presence into New Orleans. People died because of this. That is beyond unacceptable.

For the record, I don't believe that there was a plan to decimate the poor (largely black) population of New Orleans (despite what a quote from the Representative of Baton Rouge may suggest). There clearly was neglect, but it was not malicious per se. (at least not on the federal level) I think Senator Obama sums it up perfectly:

"Whoever was in charge of planning was so detached from the realities of inner city life in New Orleans ... that they couldn't conceive of the notion that they couldn't load up their SUV's, put $100 worth of gas in there, put some sparkling water and drive off to a hotel and check in with a credit card.... There seemed to be a sense that this other America was somehow not on people's radar screen. And that, I think, does have to do with historic indifference on the part of government to the plight of those who are disproportionately African-American... passive indifference is as bad as active malice."

Though I will generally disagree about passive indifference being as bad as active malice, though clearly the effects can be largely the same.

And personally, I think great things will come of this disaster. I believe New Orleans, a few years from now, will be the most sophisticated city in the world.

True lives were lost, but thats life. Dying is part of life.

I know this may be digressing, but I recall reading Thomas Jefferson saying that big change requires blood and death. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

I believe this is analogous in any big, great change. I mean, what motivates change more than a great disaster? Disaster = blood.

No this doesn't mean go to war. In the bigger picture, it means change itself requires some loss. What was lost was a city.

Such is life.

That may all be true, but that doesn't excuse the catastrophe of governmental response. Those who died, and even those who lived through that hell (or are still doing so), never were asked if they were willing to sacrifice for this. The people who died did not die to make a political point. Of course New Orleans was lost, and even IF the flood control efforts had been fully funded, New Orleans may still have been largely lost. Many people did not have to be lost though. Of course, we owe it to their memory to make things better. We must do that, but even if we do, what happened is still deeply shameful.

Also, what is there to despise about going to the gym? It is a means to be physically healthy without having to buy all your own equipment or run outside.

Is that really your own opinion? Or, did you read that somewhere? Who are your influences?

I like to form my own opinions. I wouldn't put too much thought into what some loser had to say about going to the gym and despising it.

If anyone were to look at gym's objectively, they'd see it as a great thing.

This is a problem when I post a bi or tri-polar post. While I was serious throughout most of it, I was not as much during that part.

The entire issue of despising going to the gym was an attempt at humor.

I may think some (myself included) may go overboard on “going to to the gym”, and others may do so for largely narcissistic reasons or to “show off”, but in general gyms are OF COURSE a positive. It is still very unusual given how little I used to exercise to become one who goes regularly. I find great humor in that I now regularly go to the gym when only months ago I would recoil in mock horror when friends would tell me that they had spent x amount of time at the gym.

So was my aversion to the gym an opinion I formed on my own? Not really - it was an attempt at a joke I formed on my own. (a failed attempt apparently)

Maybe I should take a cue from the Department of Homeland Security and color-code my posts warning to the degree of bad attempts at humor. (note: this post would be beige)

DAVID BOWIE!!

“I think I saw you in an ice cream parlour /
drinking milkshakes cold and long /
smiling and waving and looking so fine /
don't think you knew you were in this song”

Ch,ch,ch,changes...

2005-09-04T17:18:00.000-07:00

So many changes...

I left GenUX last month. I'd rather not go into details in public, but I think it was an amicable split. (at least I hope it was) (yes, I still run Gentoo Linux on 3 of my 4 computers, the other one running OS X)

I became what I once despised... one who goes to a "gym." Yes, that's correct, the world is at an end, and I have joined a gym, and actually go regularly. (3-6 times a week, most weeks closer to the latter number) It's anyone's guess how long this will last (so far it has been going on for about 6-7 weeks). Some side-notes on going to the gym:

Listening to "Heroin" by the Velvet Underground while doing cardiovascular exercise is plain wrong, yet it works (and in case anyone is wondering, I went to Berkeley for 5 years, and I still have never taken any "drugs" of any kind except for those prescribed to me by an actual doctor for actual medicinal purposes... yes, I'm extremely square)
If the gym is open 24-hours a day, and one can survive on a schedule where they wake up after noon, then hitting the gym past 10pm can work really nicely.
"Soft-Hearted Hana" by George Harrison is a HORRIBLE song to listen to while doing exercise though with the continual altering of the speed of the song at the end. It kills whatever rhythm you have. Indeed, any track that varispeeds is probably going to be a bad one to exercise to. (note: I still like the song)
Early Beatles ('62-'65) songs are REALLY good for working out to since they're usually very high energy, indeed, the songs one listens to seems to matter a lot. I've found myself lose energy and focus too many times because I picked poorly for my "workout music" (eg: the album "I'm Your Man" by Leonard Cohen didn't work well)

Watching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how horrific the Bush "administration" has bungled everything has managed to find a way to raise my level of outrage and disgust even higher than it had been before. No matter how low I place my expectations for this White House, it is ALWAYS undercut. I can't add anything eloquent or otherwise right now. I'm too apoplectic to begin to gather thoughts. Normally I would add that hopefully something good will come of this, but at this point, I can't even fake that level of enthusiasm and hope.

I started yet another semester of graduate school... one that promises to be my final for my Master's Degree in Computer Science (at least the last one I take courses during). I decided to take some classes beyond what I am required to for the sake of fun (yes, fun), and to fill in gaps of my education as well as working on my thesis that I plan to complete this semester. I am still trying to decide if I want to go for a doctoral program in Computer Science or not.

I am working on side jobs. Tomorrow I am going to help "Alliance For A Better California" (a campaign against our Governor's propositions this fall) set up computer networks for their field offices. I am getting paid, but I'm also glad to be doing something in the political process again. Even as disgusted as I am right now, I still want things to be better. I may have another opportunity or two coming down the pike as well. I have also put out job applications to various companies, mostly for software engineering positions. (in theory I'm pretty well trained for that now)

Let me see.. A new Rolling Stones album, "A Bigger Bang" comes out on Tuesday. I've heard an advance copy, and it's quite good (yes, I will buy the real thing when it's out). This will never replace anything in their "holy" quadrilogy from '68-'72 of "Beggar's Banquet", "Let It Bleed", "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile On Main Street", but it is rather good. I enjoyed their albums from "Steel Wheels" through "Bridges To Babylon", but this is better. It takes a few listens to get into, and not every track works. The "controversial" political track, "Sweet Neo Con" is not one of the better songs on the album, even though I generally agree with the sentiment. The lyrics are still awkward, and overly blunt. (or as a friend put it, clumsy) Still, this is easily the best Stones LP since "Tattoo You" 24 years ago. (Grade: B+)
Paul McCartney's new album, "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" comes out the following Tuesday, and I have only heard pieces of it - not enough to form any opinion with. I honestly don't know if this will be another middling effort with a handful of standout cuts, or a miraculous continuation of what I believe to be the best streak of Paul's solo career. "Flaming Pie" and "Driving Rain" I believe stand up as two of the best albums he has made since the Beatles broke up. Even with those albums not every cut works, but an amazing amount of the albums DO work, and they work VERY well. "The World Tonight", "Somedays", "Beautiful Night", "Calico Skies", "The Song We Were Singing", "Lonely Road", "Heather", and "About You" are amongst his best songs he has written since 1970. If Paul can manage ANOTHER great album, he will officially be one the best streak of his career since the Beatles. (yes, I am ignoring the wonderful "Run Devil Run" since it was mostly a covers album) I'm hoping for a continuation of the streak... even if I can't see him in concert this go-around.
Off-hand, I cannot think of any other releases I am looking forward to (including any Bowie as my misleading title may imply)

Of course, there have been many many other changes in the last few months (being able to listen to the Beatles being one), but most I prefer not to speak of on a public forum. (yes, they are largely positive changes)

Does any of this excuse my lack of posting? Well, no... but on the other hand, given my lack of readership, it really is a very minor issue. (if someone doesn't post, and no one is paying attention did the blog really not get updated? And if don't not speak in double negatives am I speaking in a positive tone?)

Out of college, money spent, see no future, pay no rent

2005-07-14T01:00:00.000-07:00

Ok, only parts of that quote from You Never Give Me Your Money are true. I'm not out of college, at least, not yet.

Since I quit posting I survived (and only barely in the Spring) 2 more full semesters of graduate school at CSULB. I did pretty well in the Fall, as I had somewhat followed my dictate of actually focusing on school as my main focus. (which was at least a large part of the reason I resigned as a teacher) Unfortunately, my focus was once again entirely lost in the Spring as I started work on GenUX with a good friend. (yes, this was the idea I referenced in a much older blog entry) Still working on it actually, and yes, it took a LOT longer than predicted. But the time/energy I was putting into GenUX in the Spring meant I was only BARELY managing at school, and I did horribly. I very nearly disqualified myself from graduation with one of my classes. (note: I do NOT plan on blogging about work related issues, because well, I could easily violate somethings I signed, and because it's REALLY bad form regardless)

Thankfully my performance in the Fall, coupled with some odd administrative issues, may give me a chance to redeem myself. Even though at this point, I have all my requirements fulfilled for graduation (save for my master's thesis), I have to continue to enroll for a bare minimum of two more semesters due to odd requirements of candidacy advancement. (in 2 weeks, I can finally advance to candidacy) Indeed, I would have done my thesis last semester, except one can't do that until they advance to candidacy, and they can't do that until their prerequisite courses (ie: the ones I would have taken had I majored in Computer Science as an undergraduate) are complete... and I took the last of them in the Spring (the same semester I was completing my graduate unit requirements). Yes, I am weird. (even for a Computer Science master's student) I can't really do my thesis until the Fall. So.. that means that I can take a huge load of classes in the Fall (and one now) just because I want to. Already I've signed up for 5 classes in the fall (I expect I will end up with 4 of them, plus the thesis), and if I do all of them, and I actually focus, I can bring my GPA back to a more respectable level.

Why does this matter? In theory, it doesn't. However, a bunch of the classes are in areas I either like (Graduate Networking), or know I'm weak in (database theory, computer architecture, compiler construction). I took the GRE subject exam in Computer Science last Fall. In theory I was 1 semester of courses away from completion of my Master's degree. I sat down for the exam, opened it up and realized to my horror that I hadn't seen at least 50% of the material before. I could tell what rough areas the questions were coming from, but I couldn't even begin to fathom how to answer. Normally I do very well on standardized tests, but this was embarrassing. (rest assured, I scored poorly by any objective measure) I'm planning on taking a bunch of these classes so I can retake the GRE subject exam in Computer Science in the fall while actually knowing most of the material.

Why do I care about my GRE subject exam? Well, I may or may not care actually. I'm still very much toying with the idea of going for a doctoral program in Computer Science. Indeed, last month I visited both UCSC and UCSB's Computer Science departments and had talks about the feasibility of me getting in and what it would take for me to get in. The bottom line is it will be struggle for UCSB, but quite doable for UCSC (supposedly). I need to have good letters of recommendation, my thesis needs to be awesome (I have a great topic, but I need to beef up the research component), my GPA needs to be higher, and I need to redo that GRE Subject Exam! In truth, I'm not yet sure if I want to do doctoral program. Or at least, I'm not sure if I want it enough to justify it. However, I figure if I aim for it, there isn't much harm even if I decide I don't want it enough. If indeed, I do go for a doctoral program, the lyric won't apply to me for quite some time, even if I can basically have my PhD thesis be an offshoot of my Master's thesis (yes, someday I will blog about what it is more specifically than to say it involves network communication). However, if I decide not to do so, then in theory all I have to do is finish my current class (which I should be able to do well in), and complete then file my thesis in the fall.

I somewhat stumbled into graduation at Berkeley. Indeed, I didn't bother to "walk" at graduation since I didn't know if I had graduated or not. I had a special request to have some units count approved by the Dean after the walk date. Indeed, on the same day I was driving back to Los Angeles regardless, I found out that I was a graduate! I should know this time a lot better when/if I'm graduating. That coupled with the fact that I commute to Long Beach anyway, makes the issue of finding out that I graduate on the day I move away pretty unlikely, which will be a nice change I suppose.

Still, the idea of people calling me doctor in a non-ironic way is kinda neat. Though when one's father holds both a PhD and an MD, I know I will never be The Doctor in my extended family. However, given I keep the computers working for the family, they can't exactly be too harsh with me, or they can face my wrath. (DOS 4.00 and Windows 95 for all in retaliation!)
In the mean time, I still have work, classes, exams, graduate school applications and the thesis ahead of me.

I should also try to figure out what exactly I want to do.

"...but oh that magic feeling, no where to go..."

More meaningless reviews and thoughts

2005-07-13T12:40:00.000-07:00

I'm still too angry about the entire political situation (and this is even WITH turning off cable news and basically banning talk-radio) in the U.S., especially right now, so it may be a while before I subject my 0 readers to another political screed. (though I'm predictably unpredictable on that front)

In the meantime, some other music(ish) reviews that I either forgot about last time, or hadn't yet watched.

Oasis - Don't Believe The Truth
I don't know why I didn't include this in the last post. I suppose it slipped my mind, though I'm not sure why. This is an honestly good album! Their best since (What's The Story), Morning Glory. It's not anywhere near as cool as that album nor definitely Maybe, but it's still quite good. The opening few cuts in particular are killer. Not that their albums between (What's The Story) and Don't Believe The Truth are particularly bad, but they just aren't as good. Anyway, it's wonderful to see Oasis closer to living up to their potential. Yeah, many may argue they are a fairly unoriginal band (though I would argue no more than any other rock band), but they honestly had some really great songs, and they have the Rock 'N Roll attitude down pat. That counts for something, especially when they can back up the ego with some great songs. If you've lost faith in Oasis, you might want to give this album a listen. (though again, don't expect something as good as their first two albums) Grade: B

Many - The Concert For George (DVD)
Why am I reviewing this now?? I'm reviewing this now because I only saw it for the first time last night. (!?!) In my two year absence from all things Beatles, I purchased this DVD, but couldn't watch it. Now, I can. Everyone who has watched this raves about it, and with good reason. This is a beautiful tribute to a beautiful person, who graced the world with incredible music, his very british sense of humor, and an amazing humility and kindness that few who reach his level can maintain. The concert is as good as everyone says it is. There are some moments when you see Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Dhani Harrison (who DOES look amazingly like his father!), Eric Clapton, and Tom Petty in the same shot. The sound they make is like the sound of the greatest super-group ever... or maybe the second greatest. (George was already a member of the greatest) The concert never gets maudlin or depressing; it honestly celebrates George Harrison in a really special way. This is a fitting tribute for such a wonderful person. If you even somewhat like the Beatles and haven't seen this, SEE IT NOW. (no, I don't make a penny off of this, or anything except for my current job, so there's no profit motive here) Grade: A

I'll probably cover movies seen in the last several months in a little bit, as well as other random meaningless ramblings. Again, if you haven't seen it, see Concert For George!

Edit: Oops, forgot to "grade" the items...

Listen to what the man said...

2005-07-07T18:08:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not referring to Paul McCartney's song off of Venus & Mars (which is case study #1024 of Paul being one of the most gifted musicians of the 20th century, but often marrying incredible melodies with some truly insipid, vacuous lyrics), but rather to Kevin Drum's simple message about today's horror in London,

(sorry, I'm going to quote it all since it's a very short post)

If I could have one small wish for today, it would be for the blogosphere on both left and right to refrain from political point scoring over the London attacks. Just for a day. Isn't tomorrow soon enough to return to our usual arguments?

Agreed, tomorrow is quite soon enough. Right now I wish comfort for those who were touched by today's horror. Politics can (and should) wait.

The meaning of Strawberry Fields Forever

2005-07-05T18:26:00.000-07:00

Gazing through the logs of the few unfortunate people who actually go here, I realized that many of them get here via odd google searches, most commonly: "What is the meaning of Strawberry Fields Forever", and alternately "Video Strawberry Fields Forever". I'd get sued very quickly for posting the latter, though you can mostly get it on the Beatles Anthology DVD/VHS/Laserdisc set (and yes, they should release the Beatles' videos properly!). I can take a stab at answering the former, and indeed, it sort of follows the lines of thought from my prior post about Figure of Eight.

First of all, John Lennon took great amusement at people trying to derive meaning to his lyrics, and reportedly partially wrote I Am The Walrus in reaction to people trying to academically decipher his meanings by writing a song that he felt was incomprehensible simply to confound people from doing what I will attempt right now. (yes, I do find meaning even in I Am The Walrus, but that's for another post)

In its simplest terms, Strawberry Fields is a reference to the small garden John played at when he was a little kid in Liverpool. We know that much for sure. So one could easily see the song as advocating an escape into a childlike existence. (indeed, that's probably not far from the mark) However, the lyrics (to me) imply something a bit darker. If you follow the progression of the verses, each one becomes more and more confused, and each one expresses confusion and a desire to just give up trying to make sense of things and a desire to drop out of the whole mess.

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone, but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me"

The first verse really lays out the whole theme of the song. Things are confusing, and it's easier to go through life simply not caring about anything.

"No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right,
that is I think it's not too bad."

Actually, this was the first verse that John wrote for the song, but it in many ways continues the theme of frustration at the world, though clearly the protagonist is even more apathetic about his state. In addition compared to the simple declarative statements of the first verse, this one has much more awkward and confused language. Even if the lyric sheets don't show it, the second line has pauses nearly every 2 words which should read more like "That is you can't, you know, tune in, but it's all right"

"Always, no sometimes, think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream.
I think ehh no, I mean ehh 'yes', but it's all wrong, that is I think I disagree."

The last verse is even more confused, and ambivalent than the others. The pauses have increased, and the clearest statement he has is that he's pretty sure he understands what is real and what isn't. However, the next line seems to contradict even that statement. In the end he simply says he THINKS he disagrees. With what? Well, we can't be sure. Indeed, part of the beauty of this song is it's abstract enough to apply to a lot of situations.

(note: there are disputes as to the actual lyrics to the 2nd line of the 3rd verse. Above is my interpretation...)

And finally the chorus is pretty direct:

"Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to
Strawberry Fields, nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields Forever"

In comparison to the verses, this is a pretty forceful statement. The protagonist is going to reach towards a place of safety, where none of the concerns and confusions apply. In 1967 when it was released, I'm sure most saw that as an advocacy to "drop out" and consume "chemicals" to help escape reality. Whether or not John Lennon intended that meaning is harder to tell. He doesn't really use any code words for drugs (except possibly with the phrase "tune in"), and instead he references his childhood playground. To me this song is just about a person who wants to escape reality to a safe, easy life that doesn't really exist where he doesn't have to care about anything anymore.

Yes, this seems to be a pretty bleak song to be a hit single (though it didn't hit #1 in the UK thanks to Penny Lane counting as a double-A side, and thus halving the sales totals for both). The Beatles are known for being cheerful, but this song is anything but. Then again, people get married and have the bands play Every Breath You Take by the Police at their receptions, so I shouldn't take too much surprise at misconceptions about a song. Yes, I love this song. It's beautiful, and frankly I wouldn't have named this blog after it if I didn't really have an affinity to it. A desire to escape reality isn't necessarily bad, as long as one doesn't take it to the logical extreme.

Of course, this is my opinion, and even moreso than my ill-informed rants on politics, this is entirely up the interpretation of the reader/listener.

So what does this have to do with Figure of Eight? Strawberry Fields Forever suggests that maybe it's easier to not care about things, and Figure of Eight asks if it's better to care or not to. Even though Figure of Eight came out 22 years after Strawberry Fields Forever, it seems to ask a question that was answered by Strawberry Fields Forever. (even if the answer is not the correct one, or the intended one. Indeed, I'll leave that for the philosophers)

Note: I'm NOT advocating people to become rampant nihilists and quit caring about anyone nor anything.

I am simply wondering.

Figure of Eight

2005-07-04T18:42:00.000-07:00

Paul McCartney's lyrics usually aren't very deep in their meaning, but I'll admit, I'm pondering the truth and the answers to the questions laid out by a song he released on 1989's Flowers In The Dirt, Figure Of Eight:

"Is is better to love another than to go for a walk in the dark?
Is it better to love than to give in to hate?
Yeah we'd better take good care of each other
Avoid slipping back off the straight and narrow,
It's better by far than getting stuck in a figure of eight."

Honestly, sometimes I do wonder if it's in fact better.

More non-seriousness (this time TV related)

2005-07-04T17:39:00.000-07:00

Pretty much an entire TV season passed since I abandoned my digital home here. In that time, I had a working mythtv setup on my Linux desktop for a little bit. (AMAZING software... if you can get it working that is) And since I took that system down to give to my cousin and replace with a much nicer Athlon-64 box, I haven't had the time to setup mythtv since. That said, I've been able to keep up on a handful of programs I actually care to see (which isn't many these days), and even get into 1 or 2 new shows.

So here's some quickie reviews of semi-recent TV:

The Simpsons
Wow, the shark was jumped ages ago, but at least the show is no longer in quality freefall. It can't be too long before they basically have reached just about every longevity landmark for scripted programs (with the exception of long running soap operas), and even though the show hasn't a fraction of the wit and humor and relevance that it had back in its 2nd through 6th season, it's nice to know that this is the one to make all of those records, as opposed to other programs that even in their heyday can't begin to compare to the Simpsons at their worst. I actually don't even bother to watch the new episodes most of the time. I buy the dvd boxed sets of the early seasons to remind me of how good good can be instead. (and because I haven't watched much of the new eps, I have no real grade for the current incarnation)

Arrested Development
Ok, this one really shocked me, though maybe I shouldn't have been. In the last 5-6 years Fox has had an infuriating habit of putting out these brilliant shows and then mismanaging them into a quick oblivion (witness Futurama, Andy Richter Controls The Universe and the live-action The Tick). This one is barely hanging on despite all of Fox's efforts, and it's at least on par with Futurama, which is saying a LOT. Of course, this is a show that's tough to get into because you really have to watch from the first episode and watch each episode many times to get every layer of joke. However, once you get dragged in, you're dragged in. GOB, Tobias and Buster are all, even with only 2 seasons under the show's belt, some of the greatest comedic characters I have ever seen on Television. (and while that may seem like faint praise, remember characters like Homer Simpson, Maxwell Smart, Lucy Ricardo, Dan Fielding, and even if most TV is a cess-pool, that doesn't mean that it's all bad) Even if the show lost a little bit of direction in the middle of its shortened season, it still introduced the world to Tobias trying in vain to join the blue-man group, the best "Weapons of Mass Destruction" gag I've ever seen, Franklin, and the dangers of the "secular flesh". If you've never seen the show, buy season 1 on dvd now, and watch it. As a warning though, the pilot episode is probably the weakest show of the series, but you need to see it to understand everything else. I must also warn that though Fox BARELY renewed this for a 3rd season, and there's a good chance if you get hooked on it, you'll find heart-ache later as Fox successfully bungles this one to oblivion as well. Also, while the Simpsons figuratively jumped the shark years ago, only Arrested Development got Henry Winkler to ACTUALLY jump over a shark in the middle of an episode as a tribute to the origins of the phrase. Grade: A

Star Trek: Enterprise
Man, talk about a frustrating show! The first two seasons were almost violently mediocre with a handful of great shows scattered amongst far too many middling shows. Season 3 was an incredible move forward where they attempted to go back to Star Trek's political roots, and actually reflect today's world by showing the aftermath of a horrific attack on Earth (ala 9/11), and suddenly the show improved dramatically (pun intended). The fourth season almost did not happen, and in a way, the writing was on the wall for the show's demise. Still, the new show runner, Manny Coto and the writers were still willing to step up to the plate and attempt to keep up the level of quality from Season 3, and attempt to (sometimes awkwardly) make Enterprise fit better into the Star Trek universe, by tying it into the original series. It still had mediocre episodes this last season, but it also had more than its share of wonderful ones. Unfortunately, of course, the show was cancelled, and Rick Berman, who has had control of the franchise since the untimely death of Gene Roddenberry, decided to cowrite the finale. The less said of the finale, the better. It was an unfitting end to a normal episode, much less a season finale, and much, much less for the series finale for Enterprise, and for what could be the last televised episode of Star Trek ever, it was horrible. (though it was somewhat redeemed by the final 30 seconds) If I were to evaluate the season without the last episode, the grade would be a B, with it, it becomes a C+/B-

Battlestar Galactica (the new incarnation)
Ok, this one also took me by surprise, and I'm only half-way through its first season. I suppose Ron Moore, who ran Star Trek - Deep Space 9 during its glory years, really was responsible for quite a lot of DS9's brilliance, as Battlestar Galactica seems to carry on a lot of the wonderful traditions of DS9: complex, interweaved storylines; well defined characters; and a fearlessness to do the unexpected. I only saw an episode or two of the original show in the early 1980s, and was pretty unimpressed (of course, I was 3 or 4 years old), but I am impressed with the start for this show. Grade: B+ (so far)

The Daily Show
This one irritates the living daylights out of me because since I lost my mythtv setup, I haven't been able to watch it!!! Especially after the events of last November, and all of the garbage since, this has been arguably the only beacon of light out there for reason, truth, and humor. May this show continue on forever. Grade: A- (only because I haven't seen it in FAR too long)

Chappelle's Show
I know everyone loves this show. Maybe I'm too white for the show's target demographic, but I won't go as far as the unwavering love for this show that many show. I find it to be hit and miss. When it hits (the racial draft, the Prince tale, etc), it's absolutely brilliant, but when it misses, it misses by a lot. Still, there's a definite fearlessness to the show, and I gotta admire Dave's ability to push the boundaries. There isn't much dangerous comedy on television (or anywhere) these days, and I hope the third season makes it to air to keep everyone on their toes. (and plus, even a hit and miss show, has its hits) Grade: B-

South Park
Trey Parker & Matt Stone seem to have kept much more of their edge for a lot longer than the Simpsons managed to, but I have to admit they seem to be running out of steam a bit. Even their Team America film was pretty scattershot. Still, even amongst increasing blandness, these two can still pull off a brilliant episode like where Kenny is chosen by Heaven to defeat the armies of Hell, only to find Kenny half-alive in a persistent vegetative state. They aired an episode mocking the Terry Shiavo controversy, on the NIGHT BEFORE her body died. On top of that, it was a VERY funny episode. While I wish they had more great episodes like this more often, I'm still pretty pleased with that one. Grade: B-

The West Wing
Given how good the show was in its first four years, and how bad it got when they lost the show's creator and primary writer (Aaron Sorkin) with its fifth year, I was very pleasantly surprised to see the show rebound quite a bit in its sixth year. They've messed around with the show's chronology by skipping one of the year in Josiah Bartlett's term moving the elections to this fall, and they have been intent on shaking up the casts especially by splitting them in the 2nd half of the season to focus on primaries. Somehow though, they also made the show watchable again, and occasionally brought back some of the humor. Some of the episodes were over the top, and basically wish fulfillment for the writers, for instance in the episode where they "fix" the Israeli/Palestine issue in the space of 2 days, or where Bartlett single-handedly negotiates a stance to deal with North Korea in the space of 2 hours. If one can ignore that heavy handedness (of which there was FAR more in the 5th season), you actually got some interesting television, and an honestly compelling Republican candidate in the form of Alan Alda's Senator Vinnick. I doubt they'll let him win the "election", but it would be interesting (and I'm saying that as a pretty hardcore liberal). Anyway, the season was good enough to make me tune in to the 7th season. Grade: B

As an aside, I just noticed today that one of the actual signers for the real Declaration of Independence (which we are in theory celebrating today), was named Josiah Bartlett, and he was from the delegation from New Hampshire. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice it, but it's REALLY cool if you ask me.

Actually, that's pretty much of new TV that I ever watch these days. I turned off cable news not long after I abandoned this blog, because I realized what a wretched source of information that it really is. (ditto on talk radio) The only other show I watch semi-regularly is 60 Minutes, and that's not really gradable.

This is('nt) serious

2005-07-03T23:17:00.000-07:00

Lucky I don't have many (any?) readers, or people may worry about the length of time the previous post lasted at the top of the blog. No, I didn't hide in a bunker for the last 9 months. I've just been very busy with work at a startup, and school. I'm now nearly done with my master's degree though I may stretch out the time so I can take extra classes to better prepare myself for a doctoral program.

Now for the un-serious stuff... reviews...

I'll start with the music first:

Brian Wilson - Smile
All of the comments I made before apply, but this is even better than the recording I heard. The album is complete, and (pun intended) wonderful. This was the best album of 2004, and if had been released in 1967, it wouldn't have been the best (that year had Sgt. Peppper's, The Doors' self-titled album, Jimi Hendrix's Are You Experienced amongst other albums), but it would have been right up there with the best. It's weird, wild, and beautiful and one of the two favorite albums not recorded by a Beatle (the other being Pet Sounds). Grade: A+

U2 - How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
Not too shabby. In many ways this album feels like it came from the mid-80s. The Edge's guitar work is front and center, and ringing like in their classic albums. Only Bono's slightly aged voice gives a clue that this album is more modern. This won't exactly supplant their best works (Achtung Baby, The Joshua Tree), but I find it a LOT better than the (IMHO) overrated All That You Can't Leave Behind. Not every track works, but most do. Yes, I'll agree with the hype. At this point, they are the biggest rock and roll band in the world. Unlike their last album, it doesn't feel like the greatest rock and roll band of the day going through the motions, and that's pretty cool. The fact that they also have a social conscious makes them even greater. Grade: B+

R.E.M. - Around The Sun
Not bad at all. This is their best effort since probably New Adventures in Hi-Fi. Not everything works on the album, and honestly I haven't reached to listen to it in a while. That said, what works on here, really works well, especially the first several cuts. This album mostly serves to give me hope that R.E.M. can regain their majesty and glory someday. Grade: C+/B-

Beck - Geuro
This isn't Sea Change. On one hand that's really too bad, as Sea Change was a masterwork, but on the other hand, it doesn't really have to be either. It's somewhat a mix between his albums from Odelay on. It has much more of the fun vibe of the earlier records, but it also carries some of the melancholy of Sea Change in many of the cuts. Few other "modern" recording artists put out albums this great... I'm just hoping his somewhat recent involvement in Scientology doesn't put a hamper on his genius. (sorry, but Tom Cruise seriously is freaking me out lately) Grade: B+

William Shatner - Has Been
Wow, this was pretty unexpected. William Shatner, cuts his first album in 36 years, and it's rather good! This album not only succeeds in being ironically hilarious like his last effort, The Transformed Man from 1968, but it also succeeds in being intentionally hilarious, and often a pretty good record by any standard. Not everything works here, and some of the cuts are downright uncomfortable to listen to (the spoken word poem about finding his wife dead for instance), but much of this thing really works as rock and roll, and funny rock and roll at that. In many ways William Shatner has become a Andy Kaufman-like figure, where you're never totally sure what's a joke and what isn't, and more importantly if it is a joke, if he actually knows it's a joke or not. With Has Been, it seems that William Shatner is quite aware it's a joke, and he's joining in for the fun. Amazingly this was one of 2004's best albums! Grade: B

Leonard Cohen - Dear Heather
Even for Leonard Cohen, this album is weird. The sound may remind one of his previous effort, Ten New Songs, but the mood is almost entirely void of the sadness on nearly every cut from that album. For better or worse, this album is more meditative and minimalist. Once again, what works, really works, but some of the experiments on here seem to be some form of inside joke for Leonard only. (like the title cut which involves the same sentence repeated ad naseum) Grade: C+

The Beatles - Let It Be... Naked
I was really hoping that title was a joke when I first heard of the effort. However, the Beatles are pretty notorious for only the most bizarre projects seeing the light of day in favor of the ones that really should be released (like the film, Let It Be!). Let It Be... Naked continues that tradition. Clearly there are some improvements on the proper Let It Be with this effort. Across The Universe is a lot closer to the proper recording with the new remix, although it's still missing the incredible backwards guitar effects on the proper take 7. The song Let It Be is interesting in the new hybrid version incorporating a new combination of the overdubs for the song (and clearly violating any nakedness), but I'm still partial to the version that appears on the actual album Let It Be for George's blistering guitar work on that mix. Don't Let Me Down is glorious for the most part as they finally somewhat released a rooftop concert derived version of the song... Unfortunately, they did not have the courage to just release the first version of it from the rooftop concert directly. Instead they decided to cover up John's vocal flub by mixing and matching between the two rooftop concert renditions of the song. It's too bad, because that flub actually makes the performance all the better. Still, it's wonderful to have a copy of the song with John and Paul singing the chorus together in good sound quality. The Long and Winding Road is unadorned, which is nice, but we already have that on the Beatles Anthology 3. The major change here is that they used a slightly different take, which I suppose is nice to have in good sound quality. I've Got A Feeling seems to be a different rooftop version than released earlier (I'm going from memory here, so I could be wrong), and sound inferior to the version on Let It Be, and the mix of Two Of Us is also inferior to the one on Let It Be. The "bonus cd" is also a joke. There is a LOT of great material to draw upon from their weeks in the studio in January of 1969. There could easily be 2-3 cds of releasable really wonderful music in there... but this 20 minute hodge-podge of short clips isn't it. So this album is somewhat interesting, and certainly listenable, but I can't honestly say it's in any way better than Let It Be, or even the original Get Back LP that wasn't released (any version of it). Let It Be may have been pretty heavily modified by Phil Spector, but with few exceptions, Spector usually made smart decisions (The Long And Winding Road and Across The Universe excepted). Get Back mostly has the courage of its convictions in keeping pretty strictly to the "as they recorded it" raw sound. It's weirder by far than anything that was released (4.5 minutes of Dig It! is very weird indeed), and Glyn Johns generally chose versions of the songs that weren't necessarily the best available (Two Of Us, I've Got A Feeling, Don't Let Me Down, etc). That said it's a much more accurate document of what that month was like without getting too "real" for all but the most hard core fans (like myself). I don't really know what the point is for Let It Be... Naked. Frankly, I would have preferred a legitimate release of one of the versions of the Get Back LP, a proper release of the rooftop concert, or ideally a 2-3 cd set of the best of the Twickenham and Apple studio sessions. Even though the grade is pretty low for the album, it's mostly because I see this as such a missed opportunity. Incidentally, if people are wondering why I'm reviewing this so long after it was released, it's because I only first listened to it this last week... I had a weird 25 month period of not really being able to listen to the Beatles, that only very recently seems to have ended. (whew!) Grade: C- (for the missed opportunity, the music is still awesome)

I'll talk about films and tv and other stuff later

This is serious

2004-09-11T22:45:00.000-07:00

I really hope there's another explanation for this, but it appears as though North Korea has and is now testing nukes.

This is bad. Very bad.

I'll post more later (and get back to replying to comments), but right now I'm feeling a bit like I did exactly three years ago realizing that what I feared would become true, has in fact come to pass.

May we somehow find the wisdom to find a way out of this.

[Added 7/2/05] Ok, yeah, this should have been updated a LONG time ago... thankfully we survived to face another day (turns out the explosion was probably not a nuke test). Of course it also means that I survived, which means I may yet blog again...

In remembrance

2004-09-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

I cannot give adequate voice to what happened three years ago, but I found a few things that did. This is not partisan or jokey, but I do highly recommend you read the transcript from the first Daily Show after the attacks. I can't put it any better than Stewart when he said:

The view from my apartment was the World Trade Center and now it's gone. They attacked it. This symbol of American ingenuity and strength and labor and imagination and commerce and it is gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty. You can't beat that.

The entire transcript is equally brilliant.

Also in the aftermath, another unlikely source came forward to properly frame the aftermath: The Onion. Their first issue that arrived after the attacks included the brilliant article, "God Angrily Clarifies No-Kill Rule"

If you aren't already overloaded with memories of that day, read both. I will resume normal stuff, the stuff that by its very presence exemplifies our victory over those inhuman terrorists, and resume to exercise my freedom of speech. For now, I'm a bit under the weather, and nothing I write will be as good as what I am linking to. (not to say I may try to some day, but I will not today)

(un)Civil discourse in America today

2004-09-05T02:58:00.000-07:00

This is somewhat a followup to an older post where I talked about limits of reasonable debate. I largely grew up (and still live) in a very conservative area in Los Angeles county (yes, such a thing exists), Palos Verdes. It's a very affluent, and extraordinarily conservative area. In Jr. High when there would be debates on abortion, the debates would be me against 30 other people, with mine being the sole pro-Choice voice. (yes, I learned how to shout over all 30) Eventually I got tired of such repetitive debates, and I also learned that some people just aren't worth the effort. Far too many in our society match in a very serious way the words John Lennon sang in sympathy, "He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see, Nowhere Man can you see me at all?"

I am not limiting this to the right or the left. I've had Communists scream in my face because I wasn't against all forms of capitalism, and I've had people become apoplectic because I did not agree with his view of how great the current President is. Unfortunately, many many people do not agree with Voltaire's words - "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it."

In a free society, this is unfortunately a fact of life - not everyone chooses to have an open mind or is willing to accept that other points of view can possibly be valid. Thankfully many do. I may not be the best person on Earth at respecting other view points, and there are definitely some view points I will not tolerate (especially of those in positions of power). I will not tolerate people defending Nazism. I will not tolerate people advocating indiscriminate violence . I will not tolerate those who profess racism, sexism, agism, homophobia, heterophobia, and the ilk. I will not tolerate those who honestly hate and wish to destroy this nation, and there are some. (generally these people will freely admit to this) Note: there is of course a difference between those who disagree with policies, disagree with leadership, condemn parts of this nations varied past, and those who entirely hate and wish to destroy this nation. Criticism is patriotic. Destruction is not.

As a note, if you try to explain that Britney Spears is superior to the Beatles, then we have a problem. I can be philosophical (sorta) when it comes to politics, political theory and other issues. However, the Beatles rule, period.

My grandfather (on my father's side) was an arch-conservative with lots of issues. He had alienated much of the family by the time he passed away from lung cancer due to other issues. That said, he did his best to be good to myself and my sister. He knew that even then I had largely formed a political viewpoint contrary to his own. I will never know if what he said to me was what he honestly believed or if he was trying to change me in a way that wouldn't further tick off the family or myself, but he told me words that I do try to live by, "always try to look on both sides to make sure you're correct."

I don't delude myself into thinking I will change anyone's heart-felt views with this site, or in my life. However, I do have the faith in the strength of my ideas and ideals that I believe in the free market of ideas my views can do pretty well. I also happen to believe that discussion can be fascinating even if not a single person changes their view. I have loved the few discussions on here that have remained civil. No one changed their view, but that isn't always the point. Remember, in ancient Greece, three of the most famous philosophers followed each other: Socrates, Plato and then Aristotle. Each held radically different views of the universe and how it worked. All of them were brilliant. Smart people can disagree. And in my case, even the far more mediocre minds can as well.

Pluralism, the idea that opposing viewpoints can and should exist, that's part of the true genius of our founding fathers. Even in these troubled days, we should all try to remember that. (and I'll include myself in that)

BTW: This does not mean I will quit criticizing the administration, or Republicans in general, and the other sides should not relent either. We can all do so in a better manner.

In other (musical) news...

2004-09-04T11:09:00.000-07:00

A reminder that Smile finally comes out this month (Sept 28). U2's next album (probably named Veritgo) is now supposedly coming out in November. R.E.M.'s next album, Around The Sun comes out in early October. (you can stream a copy of their first single from their site). Beck is supposedly working on a new album. Paul McCartney has been working on one, but no word on when it comes out. There apparently will be 2 new John Lennon releases this Fall. Lennon Acoustic, which appears to be a selection of acoustic tracks, some commercially released versions, some culled from the Lennon Anthology set, and some "unavailable until now". Given the quality of his acoustic demos/etc, it could be quite interesting. They are also releasing a remastered/expanded Rock and Roll this fall. Given that has some of the muddiest sound of any of his releases, the obligatory remix may actually help the sonics. (yes, I know there were major problems with the remix of Plastic Ono Band, but the other ones have been pretty decent in my not so humble opinion) Unfortunatly, much of the bonus material appears to be taken from the existing Menlove Ave release. Now to see if they bother to try to fix the sound on what I consider his worst sounding release, Walls & Bridges. (incidentally one I consider vastly underrated) Leonard Cohen's next album is now slated for October (for me to get as a present for my father) That's the major news I know of on the music front. No update on the supposed boxed set of Capitol versions of Beatles albums... Given we're getting pretty late in the year, it's looking increasingly unlikely to come out this year.

What Kerry must do

2004-09-04T02:02:00.000-07:00

Put simply, Bush did a pretty good job with his speech. I disagree with his content, and much like Arnold's it had some factual problems that have cropped up, but the delivery was good, and especially near the end it was nearly poetic. If I ranked the speeches given at both conventions, this would tie with Kerry's as the 2nd best speech, with Barrack Obama's keynote at the Democratic convention being the best. I'd rank Zell Miller's as the worst in terms of delivery and content, but the best in terms of helping the Democrats.

Now the conventions are over, and I believe the election will be decided largely on whether or not Kerry can convince enough of the population that he can fight the war on terror effectively and whether or not the Republicans can hurt Kerry enough. Even with Time's current poll showing a 11 point lead for the President, there is little reason (currently) to believe that this is any more than an outlier. (the other polls I've seen continue to show mixed results hovering in the 2-3% range of difference) Even taking the poll at its word, comparing against a Time poll from prior to either convention shows that basically 4% of Kerry's support from them have become undecideds. The race is fundamentally still much the same. I believe Bush is the front-runner, but a very vunerable one.

Kerry must be able to answer what he would have done in Iraq in a clear and concise way. I have done my best to give the answer I believe is his: that he believed that it is fundamentally correct for the President to have such authority to go to war, but that the war and especially its aftermath was not conducted correctly. (note: I go a bit further in my opinion, but I am trying to voice his opinion) He must be able to answer what he would do to fight the war on terror in the next 4 years in clear and unambiguous terms. I can't imagine he won't be asked this at a debate (assuming they happen). I assume and hope he'll be ready. The Republicans have been very effective in painting doubt about Kerry. Fair on unfair he must answer it. There is little Bush can do to help himself at this point. We all know him and have formed our opinions. His job approval is quite low for an incumbent. The dissatisfaction for his performance and for the war are both quite high. He can only hope that the public disapproves more of Kerry than of himself.

Once again, go Kerry go!

Alternate universe George W. Bush video

2004-09-03T22:46:00.000-07:00

Give the Daily Show every award in the book. I want to see these guys with Emmys, Pulitzers, Polks, Nobel Prizes, Tony Awards, Oscars, everything, even the ones they can't qualify for.

On Wednesday's show, they showed their version of a Bush promo film (much as they did for Kerry)

See it, and watch a video that in about 3 minutes is far more effective, funny, and fair than Michael Moore's entire film, F 9/11. (even if you do like Bush, this video is VERY funny)

I'll get back to regular posts soon, but I wanted to share this first:

George W Bush - Words Speak Louder Than Actions

Why Iraq?

2004-09-02T15:25:00.000-07:00

Reply to a comment many posts down (including the comment entirely quoted from Independent1) put on the main page since once again, it's getting too unwieldy for a comment, and once again, I have the power!

Iraq under Saddam Hussien was one of 7 nations that were the biggest national supporters of terrorism, as sited by George Tenet in 2001. The other 6 are Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan. If we are going to win the war on terrorism, we need to stop these countries from supporting terrorism, either by diplomacy or force.

It is indisputible that Saddam Hussien supported terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Saddam Fedayeen, Al Aqsa Marters Brigade, Islamic Gihad, Answar Al Islam (which may be an offshoot of al-queda, and other islamic terrorists groups. Many of these terrorist groups have declared us as an enemy, and some, most noteably Hamas, have actively promised to attack the US on our soil. In fact, I predict that the next terrorist attack on US soil will not be from Al Queda, but from a different islamic terrorist group.

It is also widely recognized that there is a large level of comingling between these terrorist groups, meaning that an individual terrorist may be a member or have ties with several terrorists groups. Islamic Gihad, for example, has now merged with Al Queda.

Al Queda is in every other country in the world, why is it so hard to believe they were also in Iraq, a nation that openly harbored terrorists and openly hated us?

First of all, the stats referred to do not mention if they are talking about states with the highest aggregate support for terrorism, or the states whose officially recognized governments most support terrorism. I'm assuming it's the latter, though even then it's very likely Saudi Arabia belongs on that list. If it's the former, then there are undoubtedly other nations that should be very high on the list (U.S. since frankly a good deal of the funding for terrorism comes or at least came from front groups in the U.S., Egypt and Pakistan in addition to Saudi Arabia and maybe China, but it's hard to get info on China for obvious reasons)

Your list is interesting. Why didn't we go after those states (in addition to Saudi Arabia) after Afghanistan? Cuba has little influence and power, so it's really unnecessary to hit them at that point. North Korea... now if we really want to fight states that support terrorism with WMDs, then few if any nations should be higher on our hit list than North Korea. The problem with hitting North Korea is A) the leader is truly insane and B) they probably do have a nuke. (in addition to the fact that China might not like us there) One could also make good arguments for going after Iran, a nation that had at least similarity with Iraq in theological and ideological terms. Syria is also a good potential target if we want to fight on the terms of hitting states that support terrorism. Libya and the Sudan are also good candidates.

Why didn't we hit Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Iran instead or in addition to Iraq? I'm willing to grant that reasons exist for not hitting the others.

I honestly don't know for sure. I don't think we should have hit any other nations at that point in 2003. I think we should have kept our resources and energies focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Possible explanations on why we hit Iraq include:

We knew we could. Their military was still quite weak, and we either didn't really think they had WMDs or that we didn't believe they would use them. (if we really believed they had them and would use them, then we should use that same rationale to go after North Korea) In addition, we had an outstanding U.N. resolution somewhat allowing this. This doesn't answer why we felt it necessary to hit another nation so soon after Afghanistan, but it does answer why Iraq
Political posturing. Take focus off of Afghanistan, and refocus the nation on another war. Give Bush a victory and ensure reelection. I'm not saying this is the answer, and if it is, it hasn't gone well. I'm just trying to figure out explanations that fit the available information
Chalabi really really duped us. If so, this administration should be voted out for that alone
The administration believed we could hit Iraq, and the administration believed it would be easy, and the administration believed it would lead to democratization of the middle-east. In other words, the neo-cons completely ruled the day... I think this explanation has more than a grain of truth
Something involving oil or Halliburton. (few of the other on the list have much if any oil) Again, I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying that fits the evidence.

Again, I don't doubt that a few Al Qaeda members were in Iraq. Emphasis on few. And yes, the definitions of the terrorist groups were/are fairly amorphous. That's a fair argument. It still does not answer why Iraq and not one of the others. We had Iraq pretty well boxed in. We had forced inspectors back in there. Saddam was a megalomaniac, but a largely secular one. He didn't like Bin Laden, and Bin Laden didn't like him. Why not attack a government more sympathetic to Al Qaeda to tie our attack a little bit more credibly to 9/11. The fact that to the world community the attack seemed entirely tangential to 9/11 is part of why our world support so completely eroded. Saddam was a sadistic scumbag, but then again, so are so many other tyrants in the world. We are not sending in troops to stop the horror in Sudan right now. If we felt that human rights is the standard for our foreign policy, then we would have been in there months ago. (note: I thought George HW Bush's decision to send in troops to stop the horror in Somalia in 1992 was a noble effort even if the results were not as great)

Was it really necessary to move our troops from Afghanistan and mobilize our military to fight Iraq at that time? Even ignoring hind sight when we now know that there were likely no significant WMDs in Iraq, and the official ties between their government and Al Qaeda is basically theoretical in nature, the reasoning still seems flawed.

Beyond the reasoning of why to attack, the way we approached the war, to ignore any realistic planning for the post-invasion is deplorable. Rumsfeld repeatedly ignored generals asking for more troops to secure Iraq. He kept on saying he believed we had enough in there. Is there much serious doubt that another 40-50,000 troops wouldn't have helped a good deal in the first few months to secure the place? (note: I'm not mentioning issues with Abu Gharib, nor Mission Accomplished, nor Green Zones, nor anything else)

Maybe we would have had to fight Saddam eventually. I will grant that would have been a definite possibility. However, we could have waited until we had demonstrated to the Islamic world our mercy and resolve in Afghanistan. We won't win over everyone, but we can reduce the supply of possible recruits for Al Qaeda. Iraq really wasn't going anywhere. We had them cornered. 2 or 3 years later when we had rooted out the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, when we could have secured the nation and given the people the hope they so desperately deserve after being the cruel pawn of so many regimes, we would be able to go after Iraq with our world standing in much higher esteem.

In the end, I can't entirely understand why we did what we did. The only thing I know is that it almost certainly was a mistake.

BTW: Blogger should build a spell-check/etc into the comments... that's half the reason why I prefer main posts.

Is the worm turning?

2004-09-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

For once, (agreeing with Kevin Drum) I almost would have liked more people to have tuned into the Republican convention. I watched Zell Miller's speech in full along with a good deal of Cheney's speech. Wow. Between those and Alan Keyes' comments about homosexuality being selfish hedonism (attacking Cheney's daughter directly!), the Republican party showed off some of its worst qualities, and for the world to see. I'm noticing also a good deal of panning of Miller's speech.

For those interested, the relevant portions of his appearance on Hardball last night where he challenged Matthews to a duel and the transcript for his other appearance on CNN last night where he appears to have been extremely confused and incoherent is here (registration required). I seriously recommend reading through, it's quite an amazing set of interviews.

A few weeks ago, the Daily Show in its usual mode of providing the most insightful commentary on tv through satire, had a great exchange between John Stewart and Rob Coordry (copied from atrios):

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

Last night was one of the first times in a long time I saw the press start to disprove the Daily Show. The genesis of Miller's breakdowns is that finally journalists started questioning the ludicrous spin, half-truths, and out-right lies of his speech. They correctly pointed out that Cheney also voted or was generally against several of the same weapon systems that Miller accused Kerry of being against. They questioned his tone, and his overall contribution to the American political process that his vitriol would make.

He became apoplectic exactly because he was totally unprepared for this. Conservative pundits haven't been called on their lies in quite a while. The Swift Boat Veterans group has largely been allowed to give "their side" of the story about John Kerry's service in Vietnam when there is scant evidence (ok, really no evidence) that supports any of their claims. Indeed, most claims are either completely refuted, are impossible to prove or disprove, or are entirely opinion. Yet, these people up through this point have been given equal credibility as the official record which has stood for 35 years.

Did the Daily Show get the press tougher? Probably not. Maybe as others have hypothesized, the press is getting fed up being the whipping boy of the RNC. Maybe they suddenly remembered their mission to report the truth as best as they could. Maybe this is temporary (indeed, that would be my guess). However, for this moment the press has done its job, and the Republicans have exposed their worst tendencies, and were called on it. Yesterday was pretty good. Now let's see what Bush does tonight.

As a note, I think the one exception to the rule of the press generally being passive has been Fox.... why must it be Fox though?

For the record, I'm guessing Bush will be about 2-3 points up after the convention. (I'm sure some polls will show more, some less) I'd love to be overestimating on that.

When satire is entirely unnecessary

2004-09-01T22:28:00.000-07:00

I was planning on writing another lame attempt at satire about the Republican convention, but officially, that is entirely unnecessary.

When I watched John Kerry's acceptance speech a month ago I had a few moments of giddiness as I watched him deliver on my hopes, as I saw him rise to the occasion.

Tonight I'm getting a bit of the same giddiness.

Thank you Zell Miller. Tonight you helped John Kerry as much if not more than you ever helped Bill Clinton, even if unintentionally.

I could watch the footage of you becoming entirely unglued with Chris Matthews for hours on end. You challenged Chris Matthews to a duel!?!? If that's not a metaphor for the modern face of the Republican party... actually forget metaphors, it's funny on any and all levels. (and don't bother pointing out that he's technically a Democrat, he's long since left any semblence of being a Democrat... unless his speech has been a carefully orchestrated attempt to take down George W Bush from within... which isn't entirely impossible)

I haven't yet heard Cheney's speech, but I understand he once again brought up Kerry's line about fighting a "sensitive" war and ripped on Kerry for it... neglecting to point out that the President has used the exact same language in the same context... neglecting to point out that Cheney himself has used the same language in the same context (in at least one instance in the same interview when he chewed out Kerry for saying the same!)

BTW: Wasn't it supposed to be the liberals who were the angry ones? (I know I am, but I must say that I can't compete against Miller & Cheney!)

Between tonight, and Arnold once again describing the fictional debate between Nixon and McGovern as the catalyst for his allegiance as a Republican, I think things are starting to look good. (He also compared anyone who will point out that the economy is not doing that great to "girlie men"... nice message to the 1+ million who have lost their jobs under Bush's economy)

Bush could still hit a homerun tomorrow (though at this point even a bunt would look good compared to those who preceded him), and the debates (if they happen) are still to come, and Bush and his phantom campaigns have much more smear left in them, but right now I'm feeling pretty good. Bush is still the front-runner, but Kerry can win. He's going to have to campaign hard, and his supporters are going to have to work hard (including myself).

On a related note, I finally took down the 2 Gore-Lieberman stickers I've had taped up to the back of my car and replaced them with a John Kerry sticker.

Anyways, if this is the worst these guys have, then to quote the President (in a more appropriate context) "Bring 'em on!"

(note: to be fair, Zell Miller only said he "wished " he lived in a time when he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel)

(further note: I removed a reference to the Bush daughters' speech. Upon reflection, I really don't want to be a person who would make disparaging comments about two young women who are obviously political neophytes, and did not ask to be the daughters of a President)

Advance copy of the President's acceptance speech

2004-08-31T15:43:00.000-07:00

I've seen an advance copy, replete with the handwritten notes in crayon, and here's the applause line:

"I will not rest until we achieve the catastrophic victory against terror that we cannot win!"

Swift boat veterans for truth in music taste

2004-08-31T05:18:00.000-07:00

In a press conference today, John O'Neill, the leader of the group, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, announced a new book, Unfit for Command II: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry's Personal Tastes

John Kerry claimed in 2003 that his favorite album was the Beatles' Abbey Road. In fact, his favorite album is Plastic Ono Band. And I'm not talking about the ground-breaking, awesome John Lennon album, I'm talking about Yoko Ono's version released at the same time. I heard him play it all the time on the swift boat, though he always seemed to want to get to the Yokoist parts of it quickly. He couldn't get enough of her screechy voice. The image of him grooving to her wailing on that record still haunts me to this day.
I'm not here because I'm a Republican donor hand-picked by Richard Nixon: I'm non-partisan. I just believe that America deserves to know the truth - that John Kerry is a dirty liar. He claims to like the Beatles' Abbey Road, when the secret he hides is that he really has a thing for Yoko Ono. Doesn't America deserve to know the truth of this? Huh Kerry? Or does the truth hurt too much?

When reached for a reply a spokesperson for the Kerry campaign said,

A) this is stupid B) Plastic Ono Band (either version) came out in 1970, Kerry was back in the U.S. by then, C) John O'Neill did not serve on Kerry's swift boat until after Kerry left D) I heard him playing it [Abbey Road] yesterday, he was really into it. Now let's focus on the important issues like how...

The reporter found the rest boring so he didn't bother to listen.

At a stump speech in Pennsylvania in front of a crowd of average undecided Americans who signed the mandatory loyalty and fealty oaths to George W Bush, when asked about this Bush replied, "I have a deep respect in John Kerry claiming to like Abbey Road and have nothing to do with this (wink wink)" A moment later after aides whispered to him he was heard to say, "What do you mean 'I said wink wink out loud'?"

Later that day in response to the Kerry camp's rebuttal, O'Neill released a statement saying
"Kerry also claims to like puppies, when in fact he kicks them! Doesn't America deserve to know the truth?"

In related news, Robert Novak is demanding a White House investigation into whether or not John Kerry owns a well-worn copy of the Yoko Ono version of Plastic Ono Band through John Ashcroft's newly minted Freedom of Personal Invasion Act.

Note: I'm not serious. As a matter of a fact, I rather like Yoko as a person even if her music isn't my cup of tea. John Lennon madly loved her, and that's good enough for me.

Semi-Beatles related post...

2004-08-31T03:29:00.000-07:00

A picture is worth a thousand words (good ones!):

Found on the drudge report (thanks to google for not forcing me to spend much time finding it!)

As I said before, I'm really liking John Kerry these days. (true, this is 30+ years old, but man, this Beatle fanatic really digs it)

(and for those of you who don't get this, that's a picture, I would guess circa 1971, of John Lennon & John Kerry. Hopefully it wasn't photoshopped by Drudge, as he often does)

"Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it."

2004-08-31T02:03:00.000-07:00

Wow! The President of the United States says we cannot win the war on terror!

I'm speechless....

Ok, I'm not at all speechless, nor is any other Democrat in the nation right now. Amazingly the Dems aren't entirely asleep at the switch, with Edwards amongst others riffing well on this line.

Now, for some attempts at fairness. (I try to be fair & balanced... or at least fairly unbalanced which is close enough)

Here are some possible explanations for this statement:

The you in the "you can't win it" was directed at the interviewer or someone else, or maybe the American people as a whole... unless Bush gets another four years of course. He didn't explicitly clarify that, but it could have been implicit.
He was making a philosophical argument that this is not something one wins in a conventional means. To rid the world of terror you must rid the world of emotion and cruelty and rid man of all but the better angels of his nature. It's a really beautiful and deep idea. Although I thought his faith-based initiatives coupled with making sure that not a penny of U.S. foreign aide for developing nations goes to programs that do not have an enforce abstinence-only credo would change things. He also passed a so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban. Hasn't he already single handedly cleansed the human condition of all evil? If so, why not claim we will win it without question as long as he appoints another 3-4 Supreme Court justices of his choosing?
He misheard the question. He might have though the interviewer asked if we would win Star Wars with Episode 3.
He warned people not to misunderestimate him. Now he's testing Al Qaeda to see if indeed they will.
Strategery (yes, I know Bush never said this, but man, that was a GREAT SNL Sketch, and Will Ferrell was in peak form)
Lock box! (see, I'm fair sometimes)
He needs to work fewer hours per day. See, the cuts to overtime pay were just a sly trick to reduce his drive to work extra hours by reducing his financial incentive to work longer. The overtime revision was really a cry for help!
He has seen intelligence we have not: Al Qaeda has been secretly infiltrating pretzel factories and is planning a salty assassination.
He was talking about winning it in the conventional sense ... about how this is a different kind of war and we face an unconventional enemy. (this is the actual White House reply, it's funnier than anything I can come up with)
He's a strong and resolute leader. He does not flip flop. Any "evidence" that he ever claimed we could win this war on terror is obviously a flaw in reality or the product of the vast vast vast left wing conspiracy.
You have to think about this in Bush-speak terms. In Bush-speak, "Mission Accomplished" means Quagmire Entered, so if he's saying we cannot win the war on terror, it means we not only won, but we all get prizes! (yay!)
He needs more vacation time than the measly 40% he's been getting.
That wasn't the President, that was Kodos!
He's been reading a little too much into the book of Revelations
Dick Cheney told him so (which raises other questions)
He's just joshing us, the big kidder!
He felt pity for Michael Moore, and the fact that the line "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." will eventually get old. (yes, I found a copy of the text on the White House official site!)
Wait a second, maybe that WAS Will Ferrell saying it!

Am I being unfair? Oh yeah. This is a stupid misstatement. I've done worse, but the fact the White House and their surrogates are trying to defend it is stupid. I don't think there's any real explanation except he misspoke. Much like the stupid misstatements that Kerry has made that right wingers repeat ad nauseum.

Though this misstatement is arguably more damaging than any other I've seen from anyone this election cycle. It could go down with "read my lips, no new taxes." Repeated enough (and it will be) it could really hurt the President. Given what mud he has slung through his campaign and through phantom campaigns, it couldn't happen to a nicer person. (quite literally)

Of course, the war will take a LONG time, and of course it's pretty stupid to call this a war. It's a struggle that will not be won by the bomb alone but also by the hearts and minds of the world. It's an important struggle that may well equal the struggle between totalitarianism in all of its forms that we faced last century (communism psuedo-communism, facism, etc) So in theory I'm sympathetic to arguments about how hard it is to win, and even some humility to replace jingoistic boasts about our invincibility. However, I don't buy that this signals a change of heart for Bush, or a forward thinking philsophical view of our struggle. I am much more likely to believe that Bush believes that we will defeat any and all enemies.

In other news, the President also claimed that a mistake we made in Iraq was we weren't prepared for the "catastrophic victory" in Iraq. On one hand, I have to give some points to the guy for FINALLY admitting any mistake of any kind. However, "catastrophic victory" isn't what lead us to send in far too few troops to secure the nation. Catastrophic victory was not what lead us to abrogate any serious planning for the post-war situation. (or at least to listen to any plans) Catastrophic victory did not lead to us not finding Weapons of Mass Destruction in any serious way. In addition, if the victory was catastrophic, wouldn't that imply we shouldn't have gone to war to begin with?

Actually, never mind. The pundits inform me that he is a strong and resolute leader who will win the war on terror he claims is unwinnable. That's good enough for me.

On a last note, I wasn't able to watch the convention (was in class, getting an edumacation of sorts), but I heard about these "reporters" that the GOP hired for the feeds of the convention to provide interviews and commentary. Essentially these reporters were a scripted, wholly owned psudo-journalism arm of the GOP. Somewhere tonight Roger Ailes (Fox News' president) in crying himself to sleep asking himself "what do they have that we don't??"

(screed mode on)

Live from lecture, it's a boring blog live!

2004-08-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

(note to kids: don't do this from home.. or your own classes)

Day #1 of my first semester of school as a full-time student in over 2 years is mostly complete. My attempts to crash courses appears to be more successful than usual (of course that's having gone through 2 of the 3 classes I'm trying to crash)
So far so good for the most point.

My CECS 328 class (algorithms, data structures) looks like I won't have a problem getting in it, and frankly does not look too tough. (of course, looks are always deceiving) A quick glance at the syllabus shows me that about 60% of the topics are ones I foisted upon my advanced students last year. The ones I usually rushed through too quickly for their own good, but definitely ones I covered. The first assignment looks like a joke, with the exception of having to use the C++ Standard Template Library, which looks really wretched. Every time I think that C++ can't get any worse, it gets orders of magnitude worse. If I keep having to deal with this, I may pick up Cobol to try to give myself a more straightforward language to deal with.

CECS 455 (game programming) looks like it's going to be intense, and if I survive, awesome. The teacher is a former grad student from Berkeley (there at the same time I was an undergrad), and seems like a good if intense prof. If I hadn't forced myself to relearn calc so recently, I'd probably be running away from it.

CECS 572 (advanced networking) looks pretty good, and I might even get into it. Though, I have to make sure I learn to read my schedule better. I saw 5pm, and didn't notice that 5pm was for the lab, not the lecture. I ended up 30 minutes late, but everything seems ok. I may even try to make the class project for it an implementation of a wild networking protocol idea I had over the summer. (It's very scary actually bothering to implement some of my wild ideas.. what kind of monster am I becoming... as opposed to the monster I've been?)

CECS 323 (databases) hasn't started quite yet (ok, I lied, I'm not in lecture yet). The class has always looked easy, and the professor is a good guy that I've had for a class before. I plan on showing up here in case I cannot get into CECS 572. Though I don't recommend blogging from classes, I do recommend trying to attend an extra class for the first 2 weeks (or less) of a semester to ensure a good schedule.

CECS 524 (advanced languages) won't start for another 90 minutes I think. Report on that one later.

Now to try to flesh out exactly what I want my master's project to be.... I still have my existing ideas, but I'm less sure of them than I used to be. Though if I continue on my current trend of actually bothering to do something about my ideas, I may just end up with an implementation in a week or so. (the horror, the horror, the horror)

Wow, can't have another post without political content... Go Kerry! There, I feel better.

Yay insomnia??

2004-08-29T22:59:00.001-07:00

Wow, this has got to be one for the record books (for me). I was up VERY late last night, and around 3am, fiddling with trying to get Gentoo Linux loaded on my thinkpad, I had a "what-if" sort of idea. For some reason I decided to sketch out some details in Openoffice. Today I called my friend I've been working with on a business venture with, and gave him the document when I met him, his wife, and another friend for lunch. Literally within 5 hours I was having a dinner business meeting with his parents figuring out financing and the logistics to make it happen. Apparently several web domains were reserved today by the group for the idea (using the name I thought up at 3am!), and the basic system could be working in the not too distant future! (ie: 1 or 2 months)

I'm still a little dazed, partially because I did not get to sleep until 5am last night, partially from this weirdness, and also because I have classes starting tomorrow. In fact, I may have to do a last minute switch to another class if I cannot squeeze my way into the graduate networking class. Yet, this is still so amazingly weird. The idea my friend and I were working on (his idea) is now apparently somewhat on the backburner in favor of the sleep-deprived idea less than a day old.

When I know what I can and cannot say, I will likely write more about it. All I can say is that the idea is something I want to exist because I want to use it. Now to try to convince myself to get some rest instead of trying to try in vain to make a decent logo... (thankfully my utter lack of artistic ability will probably win out)

(see, I can write something non-political, though doubtless screeds will soon follow)

On how to win the war on terrorism

2004-08-28T23:08:00.000-07:00

This is another reply to comments in the previous post, and the reply got too long, so I figured I'd just throw it on the main page. (I have the power!)

How will Kerry deal with an attack? Well, it depends on the attack and the circumstances. If there is a good reason to hit Iran and he finds that hitting them would be the best possible solution, then I'm sure he would. Much like I would assume anyone would. Even I will grant that Bush (thanks to Colin Powell) generally dealt well with the situation post-9/11. It was when they started shifting away resources from Afghanistan towards Iraq, letting Al Qaeda forces and Caliban forces regroup that he began to lose the war. (note: I said BEGAN to, I still think we can win... it's just a lot harder now) Kerry too supported the War in Afghanistan. I don't think there's too much sunshine between the way they would deal with an immediate crisis.

The issue of the nature of the enemy is fair one, but irrelevant to choosing who our leader is. I don't believe either Bush nor Kerry have misconceptions on this. The people who hit us, the people in Al Qaeda, are fanatics, they are perverting Islam for their own purpose, and are wholly incompatible with a free world. I also agree with your description of those who are involved in Al Qaeda as cultists. I'm also glad we are differentiating between those we can win over, from the billions of peaceful followers of Islam from those we cannot.

The question becomes how do we best defeat them in the long term. Obviously, military must play a role, a large role in fact. We must fight them where they are. In large, Al Qaeda was not Iraq, but now they are (*). That's our fault, but we must keep up our efforts there thanks to our mistake. Kerry does not disagree with that. In fact, he took flack for that position in the Democratic primaries because he wasn't willing to say return the troops now. Unfortunately, it's an irresponsible position today to say we need to get our troops out immediately, and will lead to a true terrorist state in the mold that Afghanistan used to be. However, clearly, if we can lighten the load on the American efforts there, it would be WONDERFUL. Especially, it would be wonderful to reduce the incredible burden we are placing on our reservists, who didn't sign up for this, and are getting the royal shaft from this administration. At the very least, let's give the ones activated the full benefits, pay and otherwise, or a normal soldier who enlisted. Bush has tried to share the burden, but even with the amazing pay offs and bribes we've offered to other nations to join our “coalition”, we have had few takers. The reality is the world hates us pretty badly right now. With Kerry this might abate. Does that mean that we should vote based on how the world thinks of our leader? Of course not. There are many many perfectly good reasons independent of that to choose Kerry over Bush.

We must do what we can to fight the terrorists in every way possible, but one of the key ways is to reduce the demand for it. People join cults for a variety of reasons, amongst them despair, low self-esteem, etc. A foreign policy based on Barney the dinosaur philosophy is laughable, but we can reduce the misery that might lead people to latch onto the false promises of these lunatics. We can reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which means that we don't have to prop up these corrupt governments everywhere which in turn festers hatred towards us. (witness Iran in the late 1970s) We can act decide to award contracts to rebuild countries to natives of the country itself. Part of the scandal of Halliburton getting no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq is that the Iraqis could do the rebuilding themselves! Iraq was/is a fairly advanced society with architects, and engineers. Had we given contracts to Iraqis, the unemployment would have gone down and the Iraqis would see us much more like the Western Europeans saw us after the World War when we helped them rebuild Europe. That in turn would give people in Iraq less reason to listen to and join the terrorists who have been flooding into Iraq since we invaded.

To win we're going to need to fight terrorism on all fronts. We need to fight on the military front, and we must do what we can to help give people who could turn to terrorism hope that they can make something better. We did that (for the most part) during the Cold War, and it ended up working pretty well. Western Europe did not fall to communism. Again, I want to win in this struggle. We cannot allow the great dream of freedom to die. I think there's a much better chance that Kerry would focus on all the necessary fronts. Can I prove it? No, I cannot prove it, but the evidence looks pretty good. I can say for sure that Bush has failed pretty miserably. Al Qaeda is getting stronger again. North Korea and Iran both likely have real WMDs. Iraq is in chaos, and could easily become a fundamentalist theocracy in the mold of Iran, hating us with a passion. Afghanistan has the Taliban starting to reenter their government, and the central government barely having control of Kabul. Most of the nation is controlled by the warlords, many (or most) of whom have no interest in spreading freedom or liberty. We must do better, we must win this.

On the other issue brought up, the commenter is correct, Kerry claiming he voted for the Helms-Burton act in 1996 is another case of “voting for it before I voted against it”. He did vote for the bill, an earlier version of it. He found amendments on the final version of the bill unpalatable, so he voted against that version. That's not unusual in Congress to have unrelated or idiotic amendments and riders added to a bill which make something good entirely heinous. (you have no idea how silly things get, and indeed, this is how pork enters bills) You can draft a bill saying that you're going to give California $100 million dollars a year to refund the costs for undocumented immigrants and then have an amendment added which then says that companies that relocate to other nations will have their equipment movement costs refunded by our government. (this is a hypothetical, but the real situations are even sillier) What you end up with is a politician must make a choice as to which is worse, voting against this means you're against paying back California for its burden in the undocumented workers, and voting for this means you're for companies moving jobs overseas. Trust me, this is par for the course. Of course, Bush doesn't have anywhere near as much of a record you can go through for this. He's been involved in politics for 10 years exactly, and always in an executive branch. That all said, Kerry shouldn't have said what he said in this case, but let's not be naive about the nature of Congress here.

Yes, I hope to post a non-political screed sometime as well. (if you are still reading by now then you probably are REALLY bored)

(* I edited that line to fix a misstatement on my part)

Presidential determination (the last in the series)

2004-08-27T19:26:00.000-07:00

Ok, I found the document where the President did in fact inform the leadership of Congress why he was attacking Iraq (as required by the joint resolution on authorizing the Iraq War)

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Ok, let's go through this. Now, it is true, our intelligence really stunk. In theory, that's a valid reason why we might have invaded on false pretenses. In large, we really did not know if Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction. Of course, this is an argument as to exactly why we should not have gone to war. After 9/11, it was entirely obvious we had (and still have) massive problems with our intelligence gathering and processing capability. Why would we go to war 18 months after this disaster based on intelligence that we should have been very jaded about? Why were we willing to believe what had failed us so miserably earlier? Why was is so urgent that we told the inspectors to leave Iraq before they had finished their work? Hindsight tells us that there probably aren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The inspectors probably would have determined that. Of course, Saddam might still be in power, but, on the other hand, the people of Iraq wouldn't have gone through the disaster of the last 18 months, and we would not have had to have our focus stay so much from fighting Al Qaeda in Afghansitan/Pakistan. (we also wouldn't have the world so royally ticked off at us!) Saddam was/is a totalitarian nightmare. He unfortunately, isn't even close to alone in this world. If that is to be our standard, we have a lot of nations to invade right now.

It's part 2 that is so scandalous. Even back in 2003, it was VERY clear that Iraq had no serious ties to Al Qaeda nor anyone who attacked us on September 11. True, there is as always, wiggle room. You can parse the words very carefully and see that it includes the word "including" meaning that this is not really a part of the counterattack of 9/11, it is merely an attack on a terrorist state unrelated to those who helped on 9/11, but is included in our overall effort against terrorism. Clearly, that's not the impression you get when you read it, but in a hyper-technical sense, it's probably correct. Of course, in a hyper-technical sense, Clinton arguably wasn't lying about having sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

Leadership is about making choices, and decisions. Bush chose to use our international political capital gained after September 11 and our finite military resources to attack Iraq. To paraphrase the knight in Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade, he chose unwisely. I don't doubt that there were good intentions in the attack. I don't doubt that much of the administration believed the neoconservative dogma. I don't doubt that some even thought that somehow Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.'s national security. I don't doubt any of that. I also don't doubt that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. They were wrong. They brought us to this mess, and I refuse to give my authorization for these people to continue to make choices and decisions that so seriously affect the people of this nation and the people of this world. They failed the test of leadership. Now it is time to see how well Kerry does.

The U.N. and authorization for war...

2004-08-27T19:02:00.000-07:00

I have been doing more digging around the documents from 2002 & 2003 on the issue of whether or not the U.S. was acting with or without U.N. authorization in the 2003 Iraq War. The most relevant U.N. resolution was resolution 1441, the full text of which is here. Amazingly, it really is as vague as I had feared. If I read it correctly (and while I can read congressional bills pretty easily, U.N. resolutions are much harder to parse), it does not say that military operations are allowed, but it also does not say they are not allowed. It merely says that "serious consequences" would occur if Iraq does not fully disarm and allow inspectors unfettered access to Iraq. There is no place where it clearly spells out what those might or might not be. Hanz Blix originally said that he had not received full cooperation, but later on said it was too early to say. The U.S. (prodded by Britain) tried to get a second resolution from the security council more clearly spelling out an authorization to use force, but it soon became clear that it was impossible to get one. Many point out that earlier (from the early 90s) resolutions gave open clearance to use military force (and clearly Clinton did use air-strikes against Iraq many times in the 1990s). However, in most legal systems the most recent bills or resolutions generally override the earlier ones when they are both on the same topic. (otherwise, prohibition would still be in force in the U.S.) So it's really unclear to me what exactly what legal effect this resolution had if any.
So in the end, technically, I think we did have authorization... or at least we had not been told explicitly that we could not. This is much like how technically I personally would have been allowed to hit Iraq since the U.N. had never said I couldn't. Do I think our foreign policy need always have U.N. approval? No, I think there could be cases where we should be able to act unilaterally... However, this is now a pretty awful case study for this principle.
For the record, in 2003, I was very much on the fence as to whether or not we should go into Iraq. I had a strong feeling that the reasons why the administration claimed we were going into Iraq were bogus, but I still had some unreasonable hope that somehow we could do a good job and legitimately help out the Iraqi people. I really underestimated what a wretched job that this administration would do unfortunately.

A more precise study of the Iraq war resolution...

2004-08-26T23:58:00.000-07:00

Taken from a white house site, here is the relevant text from the resolution (you do need to read it all to understand it... bills read not like normal English)

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In summary, the resolution said the President could go to war if it was in the interest of our national security, and was in fact enforcing U.N. Resolutions. The first part is looking extremely iffy with hindsight, and in the latter case, the President was unable to get a resolution which made clear that the U.N. supported going to war. The more interesting part is this presidential determination... According to it, the President was required to give reasons to the leadership of the House & Senate why this was the only possible course of action, and all others had been exhausted, (we clearly kicked the inspectors out after they had barely any time to search) and that this was an attack against those who hit us on 9/11. Again, I am not sure Bush even bothered doing what he was mandated to do by this resolution, but clearly if he did, the explanations would have been amusing to say the least.

BTW: The link to the full resolution is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Bottom line, yeah, I can understand Kerry voting for it, and continuing to say he'd vote for it, even after Bush so flagrantly abused it. (I do however, disagree with the idea of voting for it knowing what we know today)

Reply to an angry comment (on the previous post)

2004-08-26T22:02:00.000-07:00

Where to begin?

On “flip flops”. The genesis of Kerry's supposed switches come from two instances: A) he “voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it”, and B) in his supporting the war in Iraq. Let's shine some light, shall we?

In the first case, he was very consistent. He wanted the military and Iraq to have the money, but he had seen the White House and Pentagon mess things up pretty badly, and insisted that there be some measure of congressional oversight. He also wanted that the money given to the Iraqis to eventually be repaid. So he did vote for the bill, in its earlier incarnation. The White House decided they didn't like those provisions so they threatened to veto the entire bill if those elements were not removed. The final version of the bill did not include those provisions, so Kerry voted against that version of the bill. So if Kerry flip-flopped, so did Bush inversely.

On the Iraqi war issue altogether, Kerry has also been consistent. In 2002 he voted to give the President the authority to go to war as a last resort. He thought at the time that was appropriate for the President to have the authority to go to war as a leverage to force Saddam to go along with the inspections. I have not read the measure, but supposedly it also had provisions which demanded the White House fully exhaust any and all diplomatic means before war could be declared, and that the White House was required to give the leaders of both houses a specific list of reasons why these efforts failed within 48 hours of the war. To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened. Today John Kerry still says he would have voted for that authority. His reasoning is that as a matter of principal the President should have the authority, even if Bush has so badly abused it. I personally disagree, given that at this point I have far less respect for Bush, and thus I would not want the authority in his hands.

Now on to real flip flops:

Bush was against the creation of a Dept of Homeland security, then he supported it, and now he claims it as his political victory. He was against Campaign Finance Reform, then he was forced to sign it, now he wants to ban all 527s. He was against the 9/11 commission, then he was for it. He was against nation building (he said so in his debates with Al Gore in 2000), and now he's VERY much for it. I'm doing all of this from memory, and I'm not even close to the full list of what I can recall off-hand.

Don't know much about Mrs. Kerry's fundings, but that's like saying that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster since he did not prove beyond all of his detractors satisfaction his own innocence. But what IS clear is that President Bush did invite a lecturer from a Florida University to the White House with close ties to actual terrorist organizations. Laura Bush also invited Chalabi to the State of the Union address, when he is now implicated in dealings with Iran amongst a plethora of other issues.

As for the health care system, Kerry is not suggesting socialized medicine. (I think I'd rather it if he did) He is suggesting a smaller measure to try to insure more people through the existing system. It's been tried in a number of states, and works quite well.

As for the issues of immigration, there isn't much difference between the two. Bush was the one to propose an amnesty. As long as neither side wants to deal with the issue, then there isn't any effective difference. It's also quite clear the reason why Bush/Rove pushed the amnesty was to increase Bush's share of the Latino vote. So let's not act like its only one side that tries to curry favor.

As for Nader, honestly, I disagree with the efforts to demonize him or force him off ballots. I also disagree with the way he's trying to get onto ballots. The guy has debased his life's work in the last few years. I used to have a great deal of respect for him, but it's long gone now. He has gone off the deep end, and is only being kept alive by Republicans working to get him on ballots. (I am winging this post, but I can cite sources, or you could find them in 12 seconds via google)

As for deadlines, it was Bush who pushed for June 30 as the day to “turn over Iraq” regardless of everything else.

However, if you want to blame ethnicities for our problems, then yes, you really should vote for George W Bush. If you think though that will make you safer, then there's probably not much hope for you. We are not fighting Arabs, we are fighting TERRORISM. We are also not fighting idiots. If we target Arabs, and push that as our only defense, they will find caucasians for their cause. (remember Johnny Walker Lindh?) The reality is we cannot invade the entire world. We cannot fight every foe at once. We have to be smarter about wielding our force. Afghanistan actually started off well, but we entirely loused it up by being distracted by a country which really wasn't threatening us. We had inspectors in Iraq, and then we forced them out prematurely because the President was hell-bent on invading regardless of anything. Maybe we will need to invade Iran or Saudi Arabia, but we cannot do it now. We might have been able to if we hadn't wasted our political and military capital in Iraq and had spent the last two years routing out Al Qaeda and the Taliban along with actually rebuilding Afghanistan, making it a true Democracy, but we didn't. You can thank our President for that.

As for Clinton, he DID attack right after the embassy bombings in 1998. He came within hours of killing Bin Laden, and when Clinton did, he caught hell from the Republicans who accused Clinton of doing so to distract the public from Monica Lewinsky. Al Qaeda has done quite well under this administration. Iraq has allowed them to recruit forces like crazy as we did exactly what Bin Laden promised we would. I'm tired of playing into their hands. I'm tired of losing the war for hearts and minds. I want better than Bush, I think Kerry can deliver.

Note: I am not going after everything, especially the racially charged clap-trap. I think it can seen as ridiculous on its own.

I'm really starting to love this guy!

2004-08-26T20:52:00.000-07:00

John Kerry this week:

"It's become so petty it's almost pathetic in a way as I listen to these things. You know every -- (Rep.) Chaka (Fattah) was telling me a minute ago he keeps hearing these commentators, Republicans all of them, saying "well John Kerry was only in Vietnam for four months blah blah blah." Well, I was there for longer than that number one. Number two, I served two tours. Number three, they thought enough of my service to make me an aide to an admiral. And the Navy 35 years ago made the awards that I made through the normal process that they make. And I'm proud of them and I'm proud of my service and I'm proud that I stood up against the war when I came home because it was the right thing to do." "I've been 35 years now involved in foreign policy one way or the other. From being at the tip of the spear when leaders made bad decisions to trying to oppose it when I came home as an act of conscience. And you can judge my character incidentally by that. Because when the Times of moral crisis existed in this country I wasn't taking care of myself, I was taking care of public policy. I was taking care of things that made a difference to the life of this nation. You may not have agreed with me but I stood up and was counted and that's the kind of president I'm gonna be."

John Kerry in 1971 in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:

"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations..."

BTW: Read the full text on C-SPAN of his testimony in from of that committee. We see too much of the world through insane filters (this blog definitely qualifies), and the full text holds up VERY well on its own. (I didn't want to create an insanely long post)

The more I see of John Kerry, the more I desperately want him to be our President. Come on my fellow citizens, we all deserve better than our current President! It's also very nice to nearly have the fact I like Kerry eclipse the fact I so seriously dislike the current President. Make no mistake, John Kerry is not a dream candidate like Robert Kennedy, or Paul Wellstone, or even a man like Howard Dean or Russ Feingold, but John Kerry is probably the best candidate for general election we've had in my lifetime. (yes, better than Bill Clinton)

To quote Bender, "I'm back baby!"

2004-08-26T20:23:00.000-07:00

So much is going on! I've been working on a new business venture with a friend a lot lately, but since I haven't yet seen the NDA I'm supposed to sign (and he is a friend) I don't feel like I can say much about it except that it involves Linux and probably Macintoshes. Consequently, I've been messing around with Gentoo Linux a LOT lately. School begins again on Monday for me, and I will probably write about that a lot too. So far, it looks like it might really be a neat semester. My tentative schedule is this:

Monday & Wednesday (ONLY!)
1pm-3:15pm - CECS 328 Algorithms) (I'm not officially in the class, but I should not have any real problems getting in
2:30pm-4:45pm - CECS 455 (Intro to Game Programming) I'm in this class, and I'm really jazzed!
4:00pm-6:15pm - CECS 572 (Advanced Networks) I'm not in this class... yet. With luck I'll get in.
7:00pm-8:15pm - CECS 524 (Advanced Topics In Programming Languages) I'm in, and it could be interesting, but it's hard to tell at this point.

Yes, those of you who can tell time may realize that there is overlap between classes. The overlap shouldn't be a big deal since no lectures actually overlap. (I usually do labs on my own laptop when I can)

455 could be a lot of fun. However, it's very very odd that despite the fact that I got back into computer programming 13 years ago for the expressed purpose of developing computer games, I am only now taking a class (or focusing in any real way) on computer games. So far, the closest things to games that I have coded were the assignments I made for my classes for the battleship, tic-tac-toe, and the Go-Fish game. These are nowhere near as complex or as interesting as the games I was mapping out on paper when I was 9 years old.

I still need to figure out my master's thesis (the details at least). I've had a rough idea for months now, but it's still pretty amorphous, and entirely in my head.. I need to fix that, and soon. I also may add a databases class in the morning (ugh) so I don't have to do it in the Spring.

I was also able to take my eldest younger cousin to Magic Mountain last week. He's now as old as I was when I first started taking him and his brother to amusement parks (15). I don't know how many more times (if any) I'll get the opportunity to take him or really any of my younger cousins to amusement parks, but I'm going to do my best to enjoy it while I can. Also, aren't 15 year olds supposed to be really difficult to deal with?? Aside from the fact that he and I almost totally disagree on music (he wore his headphones for his discman MOST of the drive), we got along fine. I just don't get it! Most amazingly, we even somewhat found some common ground on music for part of the trip... I was able to play Bob Marley & Nirvana, which he was willing to listen to. The kid may end up ok afterall. Still, it's very odd that I can only find that in common with him (musically) given it was his father who introduced me to the Beatles back when I was three. (I still remember the event quite clearly, and hearing "Love Me Do" for the very first time) I will probably take his younger cousin there sometime in the fall to even things out. BTW: Magic Mountain is probably the best deal in the LA area for a major amusement park... I think I ended up spending well under $60 (not counting gas) for parking and two tickets. Given that will pretty much only cover a single ticket at Disneyland, that's quite a deal, and Magic Mountain works MUCH better for a kid over 8 years old. (I even went on four rides despite my neck/back)

Many more things are cooking, and many thoughts I'm still trying to organize... (ok, there's actually very few thoughts, but many prejudices coupled with observations)

More uniformed rants will follow... (in less than a week)

A compendium of the other lessons from Computer Science AP

2004-08-17T10:50:00.000-07:00

The following tips/directives should be extremely familiar to any of my former students, but I find it useful to have a link to them anyways. Read and enjoy the nostalgia. (note: this does not include the previously referenced "Laziness is a virtue".

Actual posting to resume soon. (I've been very very busy)

Laziness is a virtue

2004-08-12T14:24:00.000-07:00

A former student of mine, Cynthia Hsu, had a friend IM me an interesting link (interesting for me)

One of the class mottos that I tried to use for my Computer Science classes for the two years was a phrase I tried to coin, "Laziness is a virtue". To the best of my knowledge, it's a phrase I came up with on my own. The link is neat because a VERY smart programmer, Larry Wall, also encourages laziness in the same way. In my case, I meant laziness in terms of getting the point of solving problems in the most efficient manner possible to expend the least amount of time and energy to arrive at a solution. Simple, short, elegant code that can be reused is a hall mark of the output of a very good programmer. It's also the hallmark of someone who can get projects done quicker which in theory allows for more leisure time. (coincidently these are not hallmarks associated with me, though I am lazy in other ways)

Anyways, it's neat having a smart person validate my usage of "laziness is a virtue"

The irritating thing though is I tried so hard to make sure I never taught anything of any real value!

Now this is what democracy is all about!

2004-08-12T14:12:00.000-07:00

Apparently a 94 year old great-grandmother is running (in a VERY uphill race) against Republican Senator Judd Gregg in New Hampshire. True, she has a fraction of the funds, and is what political insiders would refer to as a "Barney", but she's my kind of Democrat. Despite emphysema, she walked across the united states 5 years ago as a protest for campaign finance reform. She also walked around the capitol building non-stop while McCain/Feingold (campaign finance reform legislation) was being debated in the Senate. Now she's going for a Senate seat. She's a long-shot to put it very mildly, but I would imagine even the most hard-core Republicans would smile at the idea of her being in the Senate.

Sometimes the dreams of our founding fathers live on.

BTW: Her campaign website is here, and there's even a link to "google Granny D". Yes, I know that most likely her web consultant put that there, but the idea that she would also have a degree of internet saavy makes her even cooler!

Never talk about politics or religion!

2004-08-12T13:26:00.000-07:00

(Note: this is largely a reply to a comment in the previous posting)

My grandfather used to admonish me (and everyone else) that one should not talk about politics or religion. He died about a decade ago, but even a decade ago I would still violate his suggestion. I never really talked much about either with him, but I certainly did with everyone else. (my grandfather was very a great person though, I still really miss having him around) Clearly, today I feel little problem with talking about politics in most cases. I will even gladly talk about religion with people, though usually only in a one-to-one basis, and usually with people I trust pretty well. Despite all the postings on here though, I do try to be somewhat cautious about when and where it's appropriate or not to speak of politics.

When I "taught" my classes, I at least for a while, tried to keep my political views out of the classroom. I feel it's extremely wrong for a teacher to in any way try to force their personal opinions on their students. Clearly, some amount of this will happen no matter what, but outright indoctrination is disgusting to me. In addition, it's a very poor manner of persuasion. One only ends up with believers who believe something only because they haven't been exposed to an alternative. There's a good probability those, when exposed to an opposing viewpoint, may switch sides due to the fact that the opposing side will at least have to actually persuade them to their point. I did find it amusing when I polled my 5th period class earlier in the year (probably in November or so) and a slight plurality thought I was a Republican. Clearly, my students did not find it hard to google my name, or look around and find out that I used to work for the California Democratic Party. Thus, later in the class I would sometimes offer political opinions, but I tried really hard to explain both sides of the argument. Whether or not I succeeded is another issue. As a note: I never did hesitate to give my opinions on music, computers, and the sort. The fact that Britney Spears has a horrible voice is not really that much of a subjective opinion. The point that President Bush has been our worst president since at LEAST Herbert Hoover is slightly more arguable. (I'm personally torn between calling him the worst since Harding or worst since Buchanan)

When at Berkeley, I acted as a liaison for the Cal Berkeley Democrats to a now-defunct umbrella group for left-wing organizations on campus. To give an idea of the political spectrum of the room, I was by far the most conservative person in each meeting. I learned that I was wise to be quiet when I disagreed with a view to avoid too much disruption. In addition, I learned to be quiet because if there was a debate, it would last for eons. The group very much reminded me of the People's Front of Judea from Monty Python's Life of Brian... without the humor. I very much remember them planning huge anti-NAFTA rallies, and when they asked me how I would participate, I said that I would not personally participate because I wasn't entirely anti-free trade, but I fully support the rest of them doing so. (I believe free trade is basically inevitable, so we might as well get ahead of the curve... but I also support a massive job training program around the U.S. to compensate, and I support writing labor standards and environmental standards into such treaties) I had more than a few dirty looks for saying that. I later left the group when I received an email from their email list entitled "I am the human bomb" , an article praising the Palestinian suicide bombers... Not the Palestinian people, the bombers. I have very mixed feelings about both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, but praising people who kill innocent civilians is far beyond the pale.

I also have a problem with the pledge of allegiance in its current form. I don't have a huge problem, but I find it mildly discriminatory and extremely awkward to have the phrase "under God' wedged in the middle of the pledge. Try reading the pledge out-loud without the two words. Suddenly it flows a lot nicer. It was written without Under God. Those words were only added in the 1950s as a part of the attempt to prove that unlike the godless Soviets, we had God on our side (tm). Now, I don't really think it's the end all of political outrages, but given my druthers, it would not be in the pledge. When I was a teacher, I did say the pledge of allegiance every morning with my class, but I would skip over those two words. (since the pledge was broadcast across the school via loud speakers, the fact I skipped over the words was probably not audible) I did not make a big deal of it, I just prefer it the other way. Sometimes it's worth it to take a stand, and make a big fuss. But, I don't believe the two words gets anywhere near that threshold.

In personal terms, I have learned to try to step-softly around some people. I have a very very good friend, whom I recently became extremely angry with due to his vitriolic approach to talking about politics. (the "conversation" ended with the statement, "I hate and despise anyone who supports Michael Moore") He was under stress, but I took it as an implicit threat that he would hate and despise me if I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. That of course convinced me that I must do so. Yesterday when asked about a political matter, I had to flat out tell him that I thought it was very unwise for us to talk about politics. He's still a good person, but for the time being, it's best just not to discuss politics with him for the time being.

I also notice this phenomena a lot with such charged issues such as the issue of abortion. It is such a deeply personal issue, and one that often comes down to such a base issue as one's faith, that it really cannot be argued. I learned this lesson in Junior High, being the only person I could find who was pro-choice debating 1 against 30 in favor of a woman's right to choose. The debate was unwinnable on either side because it always comes down to an issue of faith or one's personal beliefs. At a certain point one cannot logically argue against that.

Maybe my grandfather really meant that because you can never tell if its safe or not to talk about very heavily charged topics, that it's best to avoid them. I'm starting to see the wisdom in that, but I still love speaking with those I trust about these topics. I love bouncing ideas and arguments off of others, and have them explain their reasoning to me. I love hearing people explain their faith and how it has enriched their life. I also love asking questions about their philosophy and understanding of the universe. You do have to be careful though. Right now things are more polarized in the U.S. as they have been at any other point in my life. (Watergate may have been worse, but I'm only 25 so I wouldn't know) Political fevers can run very high. It's pretty clear that I have very strong opinions, but I do try to not completely blow up. If you notice that you can't civilly discuss a topic like religion or politics with some person, just follow my grandfather's sage advice. (for that person)

ALERT: Bin Laden to signal assassination before the election!

2004-08-11T03:28:00.000-07:00

According to the Washington Times, (owned by Moon, a lovely fellow if there ever was one), there is a plot by Al Qaeda to assassinate a prominent leader prior to the election to be signaled by Bin Laden himself. Let me help the right wingers here, I'll connect the dots for them:

This must be why Bush/Cheney require people who go to campaign events to sign loyalty oaths: because Al Qaeda clearly must prefer Kerry, their assassins could not in good conscience sign the oath, and thus, the loyalty oaths are keeping assassins away from Bush/Cheney thus denying Al Qaeda their assassination. It all makes so much sense now...

BTW: In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Look at me Marge! I'm making people happy! I'm the magical man from happy land! In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic!"

On swift boat captains & John Kerry

2004-08-10T20:19:00.000-07:00

Much has been written and argued about lately about John Kerry and the so-called "Swift Boat Captains for Truth" organization.

A few notes on this group:

Their leader is a certain John O'Neill, who served on Kerry's swift-boat AFTER John Kerry left Vietnam, who in the early 70s was recruited by Richard Nixon to be a counterpoint to John Kerry's role as the head of Veterans Against The War
The co-author of the book in question, Jerome Corsi, has made some interesting, as he calls them, jokes, over the years over at Free Republic.
None of the people in this group actually served on Kerry's swiftboat. When they say they served with him, they mean they were in Vietnam at the same time, or at best, served on near-by boats. All 11 members of Kerry's swiftboat have either endorsed Kerry and were on stage with him at his acceptance speech, or are deceased.
Their claims that Kerry lied about spending a Christmas in Cambodia are arguable at best as Kevin Drum points out (edit: added a link to a dailykos diary that has transcrptions of diaries from this time which indicates that Kerry very likely was in fact in Cambodia when he claims he was)
Pretty much all other claims have been refuted as well, or are impossible to verify one way or another. For good coverage on this, check out Eschaton.

The real reasons that this is happening is because they were ticked off that Kerry became an anti-war protester after his service ended in Vietnam, and because they are ideologically driven. O'Neill and Corsi clearly fall into the latter category (though they may also be in the former). These men are entitled to their opinions, and there is no reason to believe that they served their country in anything less than an honorable fashion... but all of the same is true of the man they are attempting to character assassinate. Given that the funding and the people behind this were also largely behind the attack on John McCain that Bush's surrogates launched during the South Carolina primaries in 2000 where they implied that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child really casts a doubt in my mind over anything these people say. The fact that Bush's campaign won't condemn this group really says a lot about the Bush campaign. (though nothing that I didn't already know)

Though frankly, I think is largely a plus for Kerry. It shows Bush's campaign unwilling to speak out against such trash, and focuses on the simple fact that Kerry served with honor by having the media focus on it and debunk the charges. This is all much more effective at keeping these facts in the mind of the public than having Kerry repeat them ad naseum.

BTW: For those who didn't know, John Kerry's work as the leader of the Veterans based anti-war movement in the early 70s, lead him to be on Richard Nixon's enemies list. This is the same list with John Lennon. That alone would earn a vote from me. Also, if you want to see a political cartoon from 1971 featuring a very young anti-war protestor version of John Kerry, check out these vintage Doonsebury cartoons! (and for those who don't follow it, the early strips were based at a college called Walden, which is a fictional version of Yale, where Kerry, Bush and the creator of the strip all went to college)

Geeking out on Star Trek stuff

2004-08-10T20:04:00.000-07:00

I haven't done much in term of geeky posts, and since I think I'm obligated to do so from time to time, I'd like to share (with my non-existent readers) a mega-geeky site I've discovered. At this site you can find the first draft of deck-plans for the starship Enterprise (NCC 1701-D). He created the deck plans with the help of the actual creator of the design of the NCC 1701-D, but later lost the rights to publish them officially. The existing plans available at book stores were created later by different people. They are also interesting, but take radically different approaches. What is the point? Not much of a point here, I just think it's cool. I find it quite interesting to see what people involved in the show thought the ship looked like as a whole. It was a huge ship, and to try to map it out makes it all more real for a fan like myself.
Yes, there are also plans for the original Enterprise (NCC-1701) out there. However, given the original series paid very little attention to continuity, they were wild guesses. Indeed, the original series played very fast and loose with all details, such as which century they were in... Most of the time they were in the 23rd century, but in a few episodes they indicated a time that would place them in the 22nd century. Of course, modern Trek such as Voyager and Enterprise are arguably even playing looser with established facts that not much can be trusted anymore. For a simple example, how did 7 of 9's parents know about the Borg enough to seek them out when it's well established that Star Fleet had no clue about the Borg before Q sent the Enterprise-D to make first contact with them in Star Trek: The Next Generation? And also, how is it possible that Star Fleet had no idea who the Borg were when the Enterprise-B rescued Guinan and several of her people in the film Star Trek: Generations when in fact those people were fleeing the Borg and this takes place approximately 70 years prior to the Next Generation episode that first introduced the Borg to Star Fleet?? Bottom line, it's best to ignore Voyager and act like it never happened. I also prefer to think that Star Trek: Generations never happened though it's hard to explain why there's an Enterprise-E without the film Generations... argh!
Also, if you want to hear something truly awful that is Trek related, try out the last track on the Star Trek 3 soundtrack... it's a disco-esque remix of the main theme of the film. (extended dance remix in the parlance of 1984 music) Yes, it's very awful. James Horner just doesn't lend himself well to remixes. (witness the remixes of any Titanic stuff) Of course, there were dance remixes of material from Superman's soundtrack (the "Can You Read My Mind" garbage), and disco remixes of the Star Wars themes, but still, this is awful.

Medicine and such (not political)

2004-08-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

It turns out I did have a doctor's appointment today. Despite all of my medical issues for the last few years, I seem to be in ok shape for the most part. Somehow my blood pressure continues to be excellent. I still don't get why that is. My diet is horrible, and my exercise is infrequent. Most importantly, I'm a very high-strung person and with the current administration in power, I get ticked off often. (oops, ok, that was political) But according to all the charts I can find, 112/60 is a very good reading. (my cholesterol is also very good too) My x-rays show no real spine problems thankfully. I need to work a bit on some lower back exercises, and I have yet another set of neck exercises. Almost certainly the neck problem is muscular in nature given there is no other obvious problems at play and it's clear my neck/back muscles are hyper-tense. (which is also amazing in that it shows that I do have muscle, who would have thunk it?) In addition, it looks like whatever I have been suffering with on and off for the last 5 years that has so drastically impacted my energy levels seems to have largely passed. Indeed, I just pulled a semi-all nighter last night to finish some Java code for a research project at Harbor/UCLA. I'm tired now, but I'm quite able to function. This is SO much nicer than the 6 month periods where I could barely stay awake more than 3 hours a day.
So yay for health for the most part. Now to actually do something with myself. Actually, I'm thinking of going on a short trip to visit family in Arizona... It will be the closest thing I've had to a vacation in... well, I can't remember the last time actually. I'll resume ranting sometime soon, but for now I'm pretty pleased with these updates.

Enough CSS for tonight!

2004-08-08T21:19:00.000-07:00

Well, this template looks better to me. It works under firefox and internet exploiter and has much more viewable content at 1600x1200 than the old one. It seems to scale down to about 800x600 tolerably. I doubt 640x480 will be nice on the sidebar. Eventually I may try to replace this with a simple table, but for now I'm sticking purely proportional. (which is why the sidebar gets so squished at lower resolutions) Let me know if there any problems with this. (yes, you... I'm talking to... umm.. ok, I suppose I'm not talking to anyone on here)

And yes, I like minimalist designs. It's easier for me, and I frankly like their look and functionality more.

Site notes...

2004-08-08T18:25:00.000-07:00

I have a good deal of code to write tonight, but I'm also trying to improve the site template. I'd love to get my walrus graphic up, and more importantly, get this site more flexible in terms of viewing better with weird resolutions. I will look at this site on my Treo 600's 160x160 screen, and on my 20" LCD's 1600x1200 screen, and in neither case does this look correct. So if you see the formatting completely messed up, probably you're looking at me trying out some edits. (I may also try to create my own, non-CSS enabled template because honestly CSS is a bit too new for me... I learned HTML before CSS really existed)

The politics of terror?

2004-08-08T16:58:00.000-07:00

"The more I learn, the less I know, and all I know is it's all too much" - George Harrison, "It's All Too Much"

I really don't have a clue what to make of the current terror threats. Clearly Al Qaeda would love to hit us anytime, but especially around now. We're close to an election, close an anniversary of 9/11, and still quite vulnerable. However, I still can't help a heavy level of skepticism towards this administration's warnings. Maybe I'm hopelessly cynical towards this administration. Maybe I'm like the Republicans in 1998 refusing to believe that there was any possible motive for striking against Al Qaeda then aside from trying to draw attention away from Monica Lewinsky. As we now know, Clinton had very very good reason to try to attack back then, even if the attempt failed. It's possible that the current threats are entirely real, and the administration is properly warning the public... but too much of this seems too political to me.

Note:

The fact that the latest terror alert occurred immediately after the Democratic convention, which could easily have been timed to mute any and all focus on Kerry's acceptance speech (in fact, it did mute the focus)
Tom Ridge's famous words at the press conference a little over a week ago praising Bush's leadership while announcing that terror alert
Rumors of a National Preparedness month that will be announced on September 9. (right after the Republican convention, and on a Thursday which just happens to maximize media focus)
The fact that the RNC and the Bush campaign have used 9/11 imagery countless times in Bush's 2004 campaign
Placing the Republican convention in New York and timing it as close to the anniversary of 9/11 as possible.
Much of the information that supposedly triggered the latest terror alert came from a Pakistani operation to round up high-value targets, which many claim came from pressure from the White House to deliver a high value target specifically in late July (when the Democratic convention was being held). In fact, the Pakistanis delivered... on the day of Edwards' acceptance speech
News that the White House, to bolster the claims of the legitimacy of the latest terror alert has possibly outed a double-spy embedded deep within Al Qaeda!?!?! (what is it with this administration and outing covert ops???)

I can post probably 15 more points without breaking a sweat, but these are all quite current. I haven't mentioned a thing about Iraq, about Chalabi, or... or... man, I this could go on for megabytes. I could also go Michael Moore on my readers (of which there are none) and point out that somehow usually when Bush's numbers are in danger of dipping below a certain point (usually 50% approval) there is something big which distracts the public (9/11, Saddam Hussein's capture, etc). Note, I don't neccesarily believe that is for the most part anything but coincidental. I don't happen to think that we're holding onto Bin Laden to announce it in late October.

Does this mean I think that nothing can be trusted from this administration... I honestly don't know what I think anymore. I do think the Michael Moore theory of creating a culture of terror is probably not one I subscribe to. I don't totally discount it, but I'm far from convinced. However, after all these years, of "Clear Skies" meaning clear-cutting the forests, of "Compassionate Conservatism" meaning nothing, of "No Child Left Behind" passing but being utterly underfunded to make the situation even worse for schools, of a "uniter, not a divider" only uniting world opposition against us, recent junk such as outing CIA agents for petty political attacks, having homeland security funds being distributed in such a way that rural environments which are FAR less likely targets for attacks getting far more funding per capita than urban centers which are legitimate targets such as New York and Los Angeles, lying about Jeb Bush having cats when he actually has dogs because it polls better, I find it pretty much impossible to take anything from this administration at face value.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: I hate this. I'm really afraid that people will die because of the cynicism, because eventually people will outright ignore a real terror warning. But there's no way around the fact that I think cynicism has been justified. True, I didn't have a lot of faith in this administration since it fought in the Supreme Court of the US arguing that accurate vote counts aren't as important as quick and smooth transitions of power, but I have tried my best to believe since September, 11. No matter how hard I've tried I keep being let down by this administration.

Al Gore has said this administration betrayed our trust. He's been heavily criticized for saying it. Unfortunately, I think Al Gore might be correct for many Americans. I certainly feel betrayal. I just hope we make it through this election and I hope we have a real transition of power and make it through in one piece. We so desperately need change now.

No bounce?

2004-08-07T12:08:00.000-07:00

As soon as the CNN/Gallup poll was announced after the Democratic Convention, the media very quickly shouted the phrase "no bounce" because there was a poll after the convention showing a Bush lead... The truth of the situation is a little bit more complicated (dare I say nuanced??). A look over at polling report a little over a week after the convention shows that CNN/Gallup is the outlier among the polls, and indeed, the further the polls get from the convention's actual dates the more likely the poll is to show a Kerry lead. Mind you, in general these are small leads. However, they are small leads during a week that has not been good to Kerry in the media. The coverage for his excellent acceptance speech was largely drowned out by the terror alert and then the various controversies over that alert. (I have not written more on it because frankly, I'm too confused at this point to know what to make of it) More recently the clap-trap about the book and ad attacking Kerry's Vietnam service have been making the rounds, and yet, he's doing pretty well.
The White House was VERY smart to try to raise expectations that after the convention, Kerry should have been 15 points ahead of Bush. Of course, this was entirely impossible. Most polls show at most 10% of the population to be undecided, and it doesn't take much observation to realize that those who support one candidate or another are pretty set in that preference. There just isn't enough undecideds to move to a 15% lead unless something huge(r) happens.
What is the point of this? There are a few points.

Don't listen to the media about these stories. When I figure out a story that is safe to listen to the media on, I will certainly inform the world.
There really does seem to be some kind of time delay to "bounces". How much is still unclear to me, but given that basically nothing else positive has happened for Kerry, his actual bounce is probably due to the convention, and the reaction was clearly delayed. Exactly why this is, I haven't a clue. It definitely was not due to media talking heads disseminating the coverage as is usually the explanation for a delayed bounce effect.
All of this is very confusing

My country, or SMiLE????

2004-08-07T01:49:00.000-07:00

THIS IS NOT FAIR!

Brian Wilson finally announces his fall U.S. tour for SMiLE, where he will perform the album in its entirety (like he did in Europe at the start of the year, which I talked about before)

This is good news...

Except the closest gigs he will play are either ON or RIGHT before election day this year! That means that on that day, I get to choose between seeing Brian Wilson or helping out the nation in one of the most important and close elections in this nation's history. ARGH!
As much as I love Brian Wilson, and the recordings I have of SMiLE from this winter, when it comes down to a question of seeing him or having John Kerry be president, I have to go for the higher calling, and I have to not see Brian Wilson on November 2nd.

Please though, Brian, schedule some other dates in LA past November 2nd! Please, LA is your HOME afterall!

(Additonal note: I am not quite so stupid that I assume that my work in California can swing the election. However, after 2000, I have learned to assume absolutely nothing. If I'm not doing whatever I can to lawfully elect Kerry on election day, I'm not doing enough)

More on teaching...

2004-08-06T20:26:00.000-07:00

Just got off the phone (my beautiful Treo 600) with my replacement at Peninsula and West High. Once again I'm struck by what an improvement he will likely be. He's personable, is far more realistic about over-committing himself than I've ever been, and amazingly is actually qualified to teach Computer Science.

I only half-joke when I say that my former high school was desperate when they hired me. They really were desperate. They went through the summer of 2002 thinking they had hired a new Computer Science teacher to try to take over for the legendary Mr. Walfred Lester (my high school Computer Science teacher, and his legendary status is well deserved). They found out just before the school year started that the teacher they thought they had wasn't going to be available. They had to bring back Mr. Lester in an emergency status until they could find a replacement... as the school year was starting. To make matters worse, he could only substitute teach for so long before he would be in danger of messing with his retirement benefits. They basically went through Mr. Lester's former students to see if any where in any position to teach. I know I was not their first choice, or even anywhere near it, but I eventually came up. I had JUST graduated from Berkeley (after 5 years) with a degree in Political Science (I was rejected 4 times from the Computer Science program at Berkeley) with no real teaching experience, no credential, and worst of all, I had committed to working at the California Democratic Party as the Deputy Director of Targeting & Data Analysis through the November elections. Despite all of that, they hired me. That, my friends, is desperation!
To be fair, I had some experience working for Professor Mike Clancy in the self-paced Computer Science center at Berkeley. I tutored 5 or 6 classes for it, and had been a reader for 2 other classes while at Berkeley. Given I knew Prof. Clancy, who is heavily involved in the Advanced Placement program, I had some experience with teaching towards the general format of the Advanced Placement exam. In addition, since I took the AB exam in Computer Science in my junior year of high school by self-studying and earned a 5, in my senior year, I was asked to tutor about 10 students who wanted to take the AB exam. That coupled with my experience with the Berkeley decal program teaching a course on the Beatles in my last semester gave me some semi-experience with teaching.

However, my replacement came up as the best candidate after a pretty extensive search, and has a Computer Science degree, and real teaching experience. It will still be rough for him at the start, but I know he'll end up as a very good teacher. I'm extremely glad for that.

Grades, thoughts and other stuff

2004-08-06T19:51:00.000-07:00

Got my math grade back from what may well be the last (explicitly) math class I ever take: I got a C in Math 380. That was my first, and quite possibly last upper division math class. It' s not that I hate Math. I really like that feeling of accomplishment when you figure out how to make those bizarre characters and numbers in those formulas dance. It's the most primal form of knowledge and wisdom out there. Unfortunately, it all too often escapes my limited mind, and once again I find myself in a position where I can't really afford to do poorly in classes that I'm taking for the sake of "learning". Who knows, if I do get into a doctorate program (which is far less likely after this summer) I may take a few like linear algebra and differential equations for the sake of learning while in the program (probably on a pass/no-pass basis) or if I decide that there's no way I'm going to do a doctorate (or get rejected) I may take the classes at a community college. Though to be fair to me, that's a tie for the best college Math grade I have received. I earned a D- in Math 1B at Berkeley (2nd semester Calculus), a D in Math 6A at El Camino Community College (multivariable calculus) and a C in Math 55 at Berkeley (discrete math). Yes, scarily I was officially a member of Palos Verdes Peninsula's Math department for 2 years. But anyways, the grade should be enough to keep me in line to graduate with the masters in Computer Science next May, which is the immediate priority. All that's left is my thesis (2 semesters), my remaining requirements and my remaining pre-requisite courses that I'm leaving to the end.
I still don't know if I really want to pursue the doctorate, but for now it still seems like a safe target to aim for until I figure things out.
On the plus side, my restoration of my scrambled server volume is mostly complete. I lost a total of about 12 gigabytes of lossless albums on one of my 3 250 gig drives after I scoured my backups to recover what I could. About 13 Beatles albums (out of my original 430) were in that 12 gigabytes, but overall, not too much was lost. And yes, I've been very carefully backing up everything to dvd-rs. Everything but the volume being restored is safely burned with verify mode on. Once I have fully backed up everything (and possibly burned a 2nd copy of my backups) I will go through with my massive raid-5 server build. I have the drives for it, but I want to be as sure as possible I won't lose any more data in the process. I'm also probably going to take another stab at Gentoo linux in the process. I have a friend, Jeremy Huddleston, (whose blog is listed on the right) who's on one of their dev teams, plus I may end up doing some projects with gentoo in the next few months so I'm sort of obligated to switch off of Debian/Knoppix. So once again, everyone, BACK UP YOUR DATA. Don't waste time, just do it. Restoring data over the span of a few weeks or worse yet, losing important data, is just no fun.

Neck question...

2004-08-06T01:14:00.000-07:00

Given the readership is near zero, this is probably a waste of my time, however, given that my time is worthless, that point is a bit irrelevant.
For 2-3 years, I have had a tremendously stiff neck. It started when I started having back issues (hypertense muscles on my back making sleep very uncomfortable). Eventually this got to my neck. I take anti-inflammatories every day (I used to take vioxx, but I've brought myself down to approximately 2 Alleve a day) mostly to help the back muscles from hurting too much when I wake up and to avoid the sensation of being kicked strongly in the back when I sneeze. However, once I get moving in the morning I'm fine all day. My neck however, does not seem to improve. I have the ability to move it maybe 30 degrees to the left and maybe half that to the right. It's just barely enough to be able to check my blind spot while driving. My up and down movement is even worse (I can touch my chin to my chest, but I cannot move my head above normal orientation) This hasn't improved nor worsened in the last 2-3 years. As far as I know I was not involved in any accidents or trauma that would have lead to this, and I'm fairly sure it's also muscular in nature. I have tried all of the stretching exercises (still am trying on that front), and everything else I can think of, but no progress, and it's really getting annoying. I have made every move to try to improve the ergonomics of my computer usage. My screen is at eye level and I usually am now able to rest my head against the back of the chair as I use the computer without having the stretch my neck out towards the screen as I work. I have also noticed that if I press into the base of my skull with a pressure that may not be safe for over a minute I will sometimes gain a small (1 minute or so) period of having partially regained horizontal motion in my neck.
Earlier I had bigger medical priorities than worrying about my neck, but by now I'm really fed up. Even my back has improved to a good degree: I can sleep most of the night on my back before it feels so stiff that I must turn onto my side. My flexibility in every other manner is actually excellent, I only have trouble with the stupid neck and I want to be able to turn the head! In theory I should find out soon (I have another doctor's appointment next week I think and I can get the results of some scans done a few months ago on my neck/back), but I'm really growing impatient here. Any thoughts or insights? (from my 0 readers)

Non-partisan notes (for a change)

2004-08-05T22:43:00.000-07:00

First of all, I just finished up jury service for this week for the Superior Court at Torrance. A service which involved basically nothing at all. I called in 4 times to their number to hear that I was not needed on the following day. Today I heard on the message that my service had ended. I never once had to show up, I just had to do phone registration and the daily-checkins, and now to mail off the jury summons notice. There are a lot of ways the courts and other government functions are extremely non-functional, but I was very impressed by this. Of course my positive opinion is doubtlessly heavily influenced by the fact that I was not called on to serve or even show up in person.
Second of all, it looks like a replacement has been hired for the teaching position I left this year! That means that the threat of me being cajoled back is pretty much gone. The guy seems able, and is without a doubt more qualified on paper than I ever was. He has also dealt with jr. high students, which shows he probably will be able to handle high schoolers quite well. I intend to try to help in whatever ways I can, but regardless I think he will do fine, and again, this means I'm officially no longer a teacher. (and the youth of America collectively sighs a well deserved sigh of relief!)
Third of all, given the title of the blog, I should be talking more about the Beatles, or at least music, but there's just not much on the horizon. There's a rumored box set of early Capitol (!?!) Beatles albums coming out this year, but not much on the Beatles front right now. There's Brian Wilson's Smile re-recording coming out next month, and Leonard Cohen's new album is also out next month. (I will pick up the latter for my father as a present) Supposedly a new U2 album is out this year, and I've read rumblings about potential Beck and R.E.M. albums. And wasn't the Who, or what remains of them, supposed to release a new studio album?
I know Paul McCartney has also been recording lately, and if he continues the level of quality of his last few albums, he'll have his 4th great solo album in a row. Yes, for those who have largely ignored Paul McCartney's solo career, some how in the mid 1990s through his last album, he's been in a renaissance of sorts, releasing one terrific album after another. (which unfortunately few have heard of much less own) If you want to hear some great latter day Beatle member music, take a listen to his trio of Flaming Pie, Run Devil Run, and his latest, Driving Rain. (I'd also suggest George Harrison's magnificent posthumous release, Brainwashed)

What is the point of this? None really, except to delay me from finishing some code.

Ok, I was totally and completely wrong

2004-08-05T21:39:00.000-07:00

Way back in the 1990s, I had a very poor opinion of the potential future of the United States. I remember a midterm project for 9th grade World History where we had to debate whether or not the U.S.A. was declining in a manner parallel to the Roman Empire. I ended up as the leader for the side that I thought was much weaker: arguing against the idea that the U.S. was in decline. Later on seeing deficits looming as far as could be seen, and knowing that crime statistics and other barometers of societal decline had been indicating decline for a while, it seemed more and more obvious that the decline of our republic was likely. When I started in Berkeley, I jokingly said I was supporting Dan Quayle for President in the year 2000 for the reason of "if we're going to go to hell in a hand-basket, we might as well go out laughing." Dan Quayle was a lot of fun to have available for the inevitable news story of for an amusing quote. However, I was mostly joking when I suggested we should elect him for humor value alone.
My reasoning derived from my view of the infamous hot coffee case involving McDonalds from the early 1990s. A lady buys coffee, scalds herself in her nether-regions and sues McDonalds over it. She wins a big settlement. I don't wish to argue the merits of the case, indeed, I don't think they matter in this case. I will gladly pay a few pennies extra for fast food as a small tax for the humor of the incident. The small pass on of costs to the consumer in this case I think is reasonable and a deal well worth it. I had theorized that the same thing could apply to presidential politics much in the same way that I enjoyed having Bob Dornan in the House of Representatives to keep C-SPAN amusing.
However as the 1990s progressed it started to become clear to me that the problems we were facing actually were starting to abate. The deficits were shrinking (and would soon disappear), crime was down, and I realized that no decline is inevitable as long as we make wise choices. So in 2000 I worked as much as I could manage to try to help Al Gore be elected President... I can write megabytes about what the result of that election was, but the bottom line is that Al Gore did not become the President. George W Bush did become President. Arguably George W Bush is every bit as amusing if not more so than Dan Quayle ever was. My previous post is something he said today. I appreciate the chuckle I get from it, and the slew of other misstatements (that he may or may not have made), yet my entire theory that the laughter is worth the price of sub-par leadership is now exposed as one of the most ludicrously idiotic in history.
No amount of humor makes up for the disaster of having Bush as the President. I could have the surviving members of Monty Python show up on my doorstep and perform exclusively for myself for 4 years, and it still would not make up for it. (though if any of them are reading this for some bizarre reason, I wouldn't exactly mind the visit) If boring is the price of responsible leadership, then bring on boredom. If living in a world without a man who knows how hard it is to put food on their family (a quote of his from 2000) can bring sanity to our foreign and domestic policies, then please, sign me up now. I know with the correct leadership coupled with the incredible ability of our people to overcome adversity, we can once again overcome the problems we face today. However, poor leadership with good people hasn't helped too much in the last 4 years. We need regime change!
(for the record, I actually do like John Kerry, but he doesn't stand out for hilarious quotes and he's also not to the level of boring that Al Gore had reached during the 2000 campaign so it's not much of a contrast)

What is the point? I love the quotes, but please, I want them over with. I was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong when I wanted Quayle for President in 2000! I fully admit it.
(BTW: if I can find an old humor article I wrote about Dan Quayle being angry he didn't run in 2000, I will post it)

Further note (added later): I tried my best to phrase this carefully, but to remove any and all ambiguity: I am NOT calling for the removal or elimination of George W Bush as a person. I just want him lawfully and justly removed as President. I do this fully realizing I will not get these great quotes as often if at all.

The commander in chief speaks...

2004-08-05T12:35:00.000-07:00

President Bush today:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The associated press story

more later...

Absent friends...

2004-08-03T10:53:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me personally, know that I'm pretty wretched at keeping in touch (actually, most people are in my experience, but I'm significantly worse than the mean).
Yesterday a friend I haven't talked to in years contacted me via this blog and I was able to talk to him for a bit last night. This is notable for 2 reasons: A) someone was on this blog(!?!?!), and B) it made the whole blog worthwhile. Sometimes I lose contact by accident, by neglect (this is often), and almost never by purpose. I actually do love staying in touch with friends, teachers, students, and others who have passed through my "life" (I use quotes because if you know me personally, you also know I have no life) even if I'm so horrible at doing so. No real point besides a thank you to all those who have been a part of my life, and those who choose to continue doing so. (you fools!)

Honestly, I really don't want to distrust the president...

2004-08-03T00:34:00.000-07:00

Why oh why does Bush make it SO hard to have any trust in anything he or his administration says or does??? Case in point, the recent increase of the terror alert level. Even when it came out RIGHT after the Democratic convention with intelligence that seems to have come from a concerted White House attempt to pressure Pakistan to deliver well-timed Al Qaeda victories during the Democratic convention (incidentally, the Pakitstan government came through on the day before Kerry's speech), I wanted to believe that the even this administration is not so horribly corrupt and completely power hungry to manufacture a terror alert to distract the public from paying attention to their challenger. I love Howard Dean, but even I thought his questioning the timing of the alert was at the least crazy at the most crass political maneuvering. I still remember how ticked off I was at Republicans and the media at large in 1998 screaming at the top of their lungs "Wag The Dog!" when Clinton attempted to strike Al Qaeda training camps in response to the bombings of our embassies when at the same time the impeachment scandal was raging. I hated their convoluted logic at the time of "since we don't trust you, how can we trust anything you do?". I really don't want to be like that! I especially don't want to be like that because we now know Clinton was doing the correct thing. Shoot, he shouldn't have been so gun-shy, and at least a degree of his being gun-shy was the direct result of Republican screams about "Wag The Dog"! (incidentally a mediocre film, Bulworth, which came out the same year was the far better politically oriented film)
Yet, Bush makes it so hard not when it's been discovered that much if not all of the alert raising actually came from documents that are 2 or 3 years old, many pre-dating 9/11. That coupled with Tom Ridge's self-serving "... the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror..." makes it hard not to be a conspiracy nut. All the pieces are pretty obvious.
Maybe there was additional intel in that matched up to older documents. Maybe there was a real reason this was done that isn't as blatantly political in nature than what Tom Ridge's comments and the mounting evidence seems so suggest. I really want to believe, like I and pretty much all other Americans did, right after 9/11, that while I may really disagree with Bush, we're all trying to pull together to get us through this struggle against a common foe. The thought that anyone would create a terror alert from thin air for partisan advantage is simply disgusting. For sure McCain would have never pulled that, nor would Bob Dole nor would even Bush's father. I still want to believe that George W Bush is not the entirely morally bankrupt. Please Mr. President, please allow me that monicum of trust.

(edit: modified my psuedo-quote of Tom Ridge, with an actual one (courtesy of Atrios)... and I should remind myself that when I'm not quoting someone verbatim, I should not use "", instead say he/she essentially said blank)

42 hits!

2004-08-02T22:31:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I created most of them, but it's still neat in my book.

Oh yeah, new blog title

2004-08-02T02:33:00.000-07:00

"Here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul" is a bit unweidly of a title, so I'm going to try Strawberry Fields Forever for a bit. This could easily change yet again. In fact, the odds are it will.

Maybe I can go for an Elton John-based title: "This blog has no title, just words and a tune"

Earth to White House: GET A LIFE!

2004-08-01T22:51:00.000-07:00

Gear up folks, 'cause it's gonna hit again: the right wing outrage squad has apparently targeted another film. This time, their target, Team America, arguably isn't even ideologically opposed to them. The film, by South Park's creators, seems to focus most attacks on left-wingers such as Michael Moore, yet still the White House is already expressing outrage. True, these outrage hissy-fits aren't entirely limited to right-wingers, but let's be realistic: the outrage against The Passion was far outweighed by the outrage against The Reagan biopic, Fahrenheit 9/11, and really any other film that manages to spark an ounce of controversy. In the end, this controversy usually helps the box office of the targeted film, but I'm tired of it. I'm tired of Mel Gibson going on O'Reilly complaining about people putting down his film. I'm tired of people trying to pressure movie theaters into not showing Fahrenheit 9/11. Whatever happened to the free market of ideas? Whatever happened to pluralism?? Isn't it supposed to be the left that can't take a joke? Or does that apply only when the left is the target of the "joke"?

The scary thing is that films that are protested are usually protested for the wrong reason. Monty Python's Life of Brian (one of my all time favorite) films was protested heavily in 1979 when it came out due to a supposed anti-Christian message of the film. Yet, in the film Christ is shown exactly twice, and both times in a positive light. The film isn't anti-Christian, it's anti-organized religion. It's also anti-thoughtless zealotry.

Yeah, Team America may not be in good taste. Trey Parker & Matt Stone are very good at putting together material which is in very poor taste. (witness my favorite episode of South Park, Scott Tenorman Must Die) To top it off, it may not even be very good. (witness "That's My Bush", or at least half of the episodes of South Park including the Mel Gibson episode) None of that excuses people from attacking the right of these films to exist or be seen. The right to free speech requires us to tolerate speech we don't like. We don't have to be forced to like it, or even see it. The last time I checked Michael Moore does not have a gun at everyone's head forcing them to see his film. We need to have enough faith in the strength of our ideas to allow others to exist and compete against ours. Otherwise, free speech is a sham.

Yet when I see people trying to organize to ban films I can't help but think how it's amazing how often in the name of attacking un-American ideas people commit the most fundamentally un-American acts.

Note: Some VERY important caveats. The source for this is an article from drudgereport. So the source is more than a bit suspect. However, apparently Trey & Matt have talked about this and reacted to it which indicates that there's a decent chance it may be a real story. Yes, Drudge Report has about the same level of journalism as Nostradamus was a prognosticator, but even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. I should also bring up the important fact that so far there is no effort to ban this or otherwise. I do not argue against the White House or anyone else's right to criticize anything. I do argue against people attempting to silence voices, even if the voices are silly or obnoxious (or in my case both). That's the price we pay to live in a free society.

I love Lucas, I love him not...

2004-07-31T19:12:00.000-07:00

George Lucas REALLY doesn't make it easy on the fans of Star Wars.

On one hand, he gives Episode 3 a quite decent title and what information I have about the film make it look like it might be quite good.

On the other hand, he CONTINUES to mess with his masterworks! It's 99.9% certain that he's continuing to mess with the original trilogy for the dvds that come out in September. I've heard reports of little things like fixing light saber effects. I'm actually fine with that. They are among the few flaws I have problems with in the original version of his trilogy. But why on earth is he replacing Sebastian Shaw's version of Anakin's ghost standing by Yoda and Obi-Wan?? At least he hasn't yet replaced Alec Guinness with Ewan McGregor! And yes, this is 99.9% certain that this is on the dvds that are to be released. Other minor changes are in store such as a view of a celebration of Naboo with Gungans added to the celebration sequence which doesn't really bother me. But even with those, we still have the initial special edition changes which generally stunk. Generally the integration of new cgi with the older footage has looked quite amateurish (to my eyes). Look at the horrible Han Solo taking with Jabba sequence from the special edition of A New Hope. Compare that to Jabba in Return of the Jedi. One of those two is more convincing, and it isn't the cgi creation. Of course, I am a bit biased against CGI. Very rarely has cgi looked very good to my eyes when trying to simulate "real" environments and integrate with "real" footage. Jurassic Park still looks horrible to my eyes (though I don't care much for the story either).

I really don't understand the reason for any of this. In my (not so) humble opinion, the original trilogy's special effects have held up VERY VERY well with time. I watch them and I'm convinced of the reality of the situation. The only film I think has held up better was the brilliant work for 2001: A Space Odyssey (thankfully Kubrick can't go back and do a special edition of that). Minor things like fixing visible errors in visual effects shots and remixing the sound for 5+.1 is great. Digitally cleaning up every frame is also great. I really enjoyed the work that was done for the Indiana Jones trilogy dvds. Small changes were made, but they did not effect the story at all. George, why can't you treat your masterwork with the same respect that you treated the Indiana Jones trilogy? Why do you make me go through all the work of transferring the original trilogy off of widescreen laserdiscs so I can own a dvd copy of the proper trilogy? (yes, I own the laserdiscs, and so it's a legal digital backup)

Still, I do have to grant that Revenge of the Sith is a good name for Episode 3...

To quote the Gipper, "not bad, not bad at all"

2004-07-31T17:24:00.000-07:00

I actually had the chance to catch Kerry's acceptance speech on CSPAN after my final. I don't believe the speech will stand along side the greatest of all political speeches of all time, but it was quite good. I already liked Kerry before the convention. True, during most of the primary season I had joined the Dean movement. (I also still really like Dean) However, prior to Dean being a so-called viable candidate I had gravitated most to Kerry. His politics are mostly a good match for mine, and he seemed like a decent enough guy. His performance lately has far exceeded my expectations for one with similar politics to mine who happens to be a decent enough guy.

I'm not going to go through this speech line by line. As Jon Stewart so brilliantly put it at the end of the Daily Show on Friday. You should watch Kerry's speech, and Bush's speech and then turn off the TV. Form your own opinions. That said, I must voice my opinion that moments like that remind me exactly why I hold Jon Stewart and his show in such high regard. Anyways, for anyone who missed the speech of any others, just go to dems2004.org and watch the speeches.

On other fronts, my final is over, as is potentially my career in Math. In the end, I remembered enough Calculus to get by, but I didn't know the material for the actual class all that well. In the end, I'll probably earn a C, which I suppose is good enough, but I need to do a lot better if I want to seriously have a shot at a Doctorate in Computer Science. Still, I have time to recover from this. Lots of little projects to work on now, and jury duty next week (my first experience with it).

I also really want to find a way to be involved this cycle. I'm even tempted to violate my promise to myself and take a semester off of school to work for Kerry or the DNC or something. I really want my nation back and I HATE standing on the side lines. If anyone knows of any potential tech or data analysis or mapping or web jobs along these lines please hit me up. Of course, given I'm basically the only reader here, this call is pretty much in vain.

Anyways, onward to November. Go Kerry, go!

Me flunk English, that's unpossible!

2004-07-28T13:35:00.000-07:00

Yeesh, man, I really need to learn to read over my posts before I post them. So many grammatical and spelling errors. Given I'm a Computer Science major, it isn't too surprising... except that my undergrad degree is in Political Science, and unlike former Vice Presidents of the U.S.A, you usually need to know how to spell and write correctly. I did graduate with that major, didn't I?

Now to fix some of the most obvious errors, and then get back to Calculus and Statistics & Probability...

Why do I even bother to tune into Fox??

2004-07-28T12:48:00.000-07:00

Sometimes out of masochism I will tune into conservative talk radio. It's amusing, it's ridiculous, but at least it has the "integrity" of not claiming to be journalism. That means it generally doesn't tick me off too badly. Fox News is different. Even though their claim of "fair and balanced" is ridiculous, they still try to pass themselves off as a form of journalism. After speaking over speeches and skipping over the national anthem, et al for the first night of the DNC convention, they gave some time to speeches the 2nd night. I watched Brit Hume and company talk after Mrs. Kerry's speech. Now unfortunately, so far, that's the only speech I've seen complete (I missed Clinton and Obama) so maybe every other one was so much better that it deserved derision, but I have trouble believing Fox was being entirely "fair and balanced" in their "analysis". Mrs. Kerry put forward a somewhat unusual, but still very heart-felt explanation of how glorious our freedoms are. Pretty good for a political speech. What did the group speak of? Well, they claimed she was strange, made incessant references to "shove it", argued that she was a campaign liability, asked why she didn't stare adoringly towards her husband in speeches, knocked feminism, and put forward theories that this was an attempt to "humanize" Mrs. Kerry. Give me a break! Arguably the speech was not what the convention people were billing it as in that there was not too much biographical information about Senator (hopefully soon to be President) Kerry, but it was still a decent speech that fleshed out a nice view of our nation as hopeful, brave and just. Maybe it was just that this didn't fit into the storyline of "liberals hate America." Though oddly enough Republicans were begging her to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania when her first husband died.. Still, this bashing is what passes for "journalism, fair and balanced"?? They make Scarborough, a conservative former house member from the panhandle of Florida, look like a real journalist in comparison! (somewhat like how Bush has made Reagan look good in comparison with how poorly Bush has done in office)

And yes, I know I'm not exactly the most unbiased person in the world, but this is going beyond even self-parody.

On another note, a sadder note, the Daily Show came back from their hiatus, and offered a convention view... that wasn't up to their par. I don't mean to say they were unfairly critical or anything, but man, it just wasn't very insightful or.. you know, funny. Please guys, I KNOW you can do better. And heaven knows there's great targets for humor at the convention!

(more edits for spelling and grammar.. luckily I'm basically talking to myself here)

Cheating/plagiarism...

2004-07-28T12:10:00.000-07:00

It's odd. I've been either going to school or teaching school basically for over 20 years now. In all that time I don't believe I have ever really cheated or intentionally plagiarised. I never gave it too much thought as I always found it less stressful to just do the best I could on my own and not bother with the bother of cheating. In fact, when I saw my own students cheat in the computer science classes I taught, it really annoyed me (to put it mildly). I hated having to suspect them, and was always wondering why they would do such a thing.

With a fixed car (it was a dead battery), I was able to make up that midterm yesterday. I knew I would be hammered on calculus, so I brought my old calculus book (the last calculus class was in 1998!), and tried to review. When I sat down in the prof's office to take the midterm, I found to my horror that I couldn't remember what the anti-derivative of e^x (or rather e^-x) was. Turns out many problems depended on that formula, and I was stuck.... or in theory I was stuck. I had with me one of those uber-fancy TI calculators... I knew that many of them have integrating functions built in. For the first time I can remember, I was REALLY tempted to try to feed up e^-x and ask it to integrate it. I toyed with the idea (with time I should have spent working on the exam of course) for too long for my comfort. In the end, I did not. First of all, I'm not entirely sure my calculator had that function. Second of all, I certainly don't recall off hand how to find it. Third of all, to try to figure it out would have eaten up time I didn't have to spare. Fourth of all, I was taking the exam with the prof only feet from me... I might have gotten away with it, but it was risky. I ended up just writing out what I could for those problems and writing a comment of I just don't remember how to integrate e^-x (yes, I know how to now) and I can hope I can recover a handful of points. That test was AWFUL, and I even ran out of time. I can't even begin to remember the last time I ran out of time on any test.

What is the point? Well, cheating is a lot more seductive than I ever gave it credit for. I held the line (laziness once again reigned surpreme), but I can somewhat appreciate why I caught so many student lamely trying to copy assignments off of each other . Of course the real point is I'm in the middle of a massive review of calc and the statistics & probability course I'm now for my final tomorrow. I will NOT be caught in such a bad situation tomorrow! That's the real answer... it's just a little less seductive.

What the world needs most: another blog entry on F 9/11!

2004-07-27T00:36:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I saw the film. Yeah, it's really "controversial". Yeah, as with most "controversial" items, the controversy is overblown.

I really like Roger & Me, and to a lesser extent I liked Bowling for Columbine. Both have issues that make them hard to see as a straight documentary, but in the end both are entertaining and both raise questions. F 9/11... is somewhat in that same mold, but less so. Even a few weeks after seeing it, I remain quite frustrated with it. It had too many issues with bias to fit neatly inside the category of documentary for me; it did not go far enough to really hit the level of propaganda (he actually pulls some punches in the film!); it does not do a good enough job of presenting and debunking alternate viewpoints to be considered well formed piece of op-ed by me; and most seriously, it isn't as funny as his previous films! Of course, I came into this knowing most of the "shocking" facts involved so it did not have the same impact with me that it could with others.
I can't help but think with some changes, and maybe a little bit longer running time for more trademark satire, and a little bit of trying to explain the neo-con theories (which history is in the process of debunking as much as any other ism can be) that it might have been great. What's left is good, but unfortunately, not great.

As for the issues brought up by the Moore detractors, well, there really isn't much in here that can be assailed except for some questions of how he edited it together and insinuations. Fair enough, but this guy has never exactly claimed to be an unbiased observer of the American condition. Of course, many of the arguments against Moore are flat out wrong. Claiming he said that we deserved 9/11 when in fact he said that the victims did not. (the article that quote comes from is the one cited by those claiming he said we deserved it) The facts in the film are pretty much all correct. The rest is a matter of opinion.

Despite my reservations, I am very glad he was able to weave in a very very pro-America and especially pro-soldier message in the later part of the film which helps solidify that anti-war != anti-American or anti-soldier. For the record, I was on the fence in 2003... Even though I didn't like Bush, I wanted to believe so badly that he would do things properly even though it was clear that the arguments for the war were questionable to say the least and I had little rational reason to believe that they would do a decent job beyond the actual invasion. I was not exactly anti-war, and even today, I'm not anti or pro anything uniformly.

So in conclusion, good but not great. (grrr!) Next film on the docket is Anchorman (if not in the theaters then on dvd) then the Incredibles (Pixar!) and then The Life Aquatic (Wes Anderson directing Bill Murray again!).

Also saw Shrek 2, which the Republican pundits were recommending people see instead of F 9/11, and yikes, what a bland film! This is now one of the highest grossing films of all time!?!? This grossed more than Nemo!?!? Yeesh!

Anyways, back to Calculus and other stuff I should be working on.

(edited this to fix some bad grammar.. though not all of it, and fix a typo or too)

Musings and cars and errata

2004-07-26T22:34:00.000-07:00

First of all, to continue the last post (which I seriously messed up the comments for... I haven't gotten the hang of comments yet) the more I hear the finished Smile, the more I like it. I REALLY can't wait for the official release in September! As a note: Brian Wilson's last release (released last month) was pretty good, but not great. Much of it is culled from earlier recordings rerecorded (maybe 4-5 new songs written for the album) and as a rule, I like the earlier versions of the songs. The songs rerecorded seem subdued compared to the original versions (example: Soul Searching and the title track Gettin' In Over My Head both have more "edge" in the original mid-90s recordings). Still, it's Brian Wilson, and it's him sounding much more like himself than he has in ages. Imagination, his previous solo album of original work had the Brian Wilson vocal sound finally restored, but had very very generic adult-pop/musak instrumentation that held back most of the songs. This album has real instruments, and at moments sounds like it's an actual Rock and Roll album... just not as often as one would hope. (and if those links do not work, I'm not surprised, the new AMG is not 100% there)

Second of all, I found out a way to avoid a midterm.. have one's car entirely fail on them on the way to school. In the process I also found out that driving on the 405 freeway is no more difficult when the engine is dead than under normal circumstances (certainly you go no faster with a working engine). Most likely it was a dead battery that caused my car to die 20 minutes after being jumped by the AAA, but it did lead to the 2nd time in my life I was on the 405 freeway noticing that the accelerator pedal was not working. (the first was at 5am driving home from Berkeley when my sleeping cousin accidentally shifted the car into neutral) In case you are wondering, no one was hurt, so maybe having my car die is a way to improve my so-called driving skills... Also, I will have to take the midterm tomorrow, so after this I have 3 semesters of Calculus I need to relearn along with all of the statistics & probability from this class I need to know... Though this is STILL easier than teaching. (yay for retirement!)

Third of all, I wasn't able to catch the actual speeches, but so far so good from what I can tell. We're growing some discipline. Now to program my computer to record the others nights worth, because this actually seems watchable. (and to find a CSPAN repeat of the speeches from today... would like to see Carter, Gore & Clinton completely and not the 5-second sound bites) Hopefully Kerry can live up to the build up. Now when will the Daily Show have new shows????

Now back to studying, doing paperwork, updating my resume, and working on my current project: fix my server (backing up all the data in the process) then getting a new 250 gig hard drive (#5) and putting together a nice 1 terabyte RAID-5 array for my closet server. Yay for Linux!

So in conclusion: Linux and retirement == good. Dead battery on the 405 == driving on the 405. DNC convention == suspiciously good. Smile > Brian Wilson's newer material. C > Java > C++ > Scheme >= coding by resoldering the circuit paths.

Smile?

2004-05-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Due to my workload the last few months, I had been waiting on hearing a recording of a concert from earlier this year... Even with that level of workload, I'm in shock I hadn't bothered to listen until tonight. I had a recording of Brian Wilson recording Smile!!! Yes, Brian Wilson of Beach Boys fame, performing probably the most famous "unfinished" album in history... live! I'm still in shock that my ears have been able to hear a finished version of this album... I heard Brian's version of how it was supposed to be, not an attempt I or another Brian Wilson fanatic created by editing together the scraps of recordings that have leaked out in the last 38 years.

38 years! This year is 38 years after the album was first supposed to be released! And this year Brian is not only touring with the album, he's going to release it! (though it does sound like it's largely re-recorded, but hey, I'll accept it)

As for the finished album, it's harder to judge. This doesn't grab me like Pet Sounds does, but then again, Pet Sounds did not grab me the first several times I heard it. Perhaps a large part of the reason I held off on listening for so long was I had a strong feeling that the album may not have been able to live up to the expectations one develops as they try to puzzle together all of the scraps to figure out what the 24 year old Brian intended. The finished version is definitely surprising. Many pieces came at me at times I did not expect, and every time I heard a new piece I was wonderfully surprised. Parts finally had lyrics where they never did before, and many pieces finally made some sense. Of course, I prefer some aspects of my own attempts at piecing the album together from scraps: Surf's Up really should have been the album closer. It is a much better ending than Good Vibrations.. but maybe that's just me having a bit of a preference for the knock-out endings for albums like Sgt. Pepper's unearthly ending with "A Day In The Life", or Abbey Road's coda "The End" (and the false endings in both cases) Though, even though Brian Wilson and the Beatles were constantly comparing themselves to each other, this comparison is probably unfair. Brian nearly always made a point of trying to end things on an optimistic note (Pet Sounds is an exception), and Good Vibrations is about as optimistic as it gets. Brian Wilson is not the Beatles. However, finally being able to hear a rough but finished version of Brian's other masterwork, even though he was basically on his own, he wasn't too far removed in terms of genius from the combined power of four or five of the greatest forces in popular music operating at their peak. In its finished form, it may not quite equal the sheer brilliance (I better end this post before I run out of superlative adjectives..) of Pet Sounds, it stands up quite well to that other album that Paul McCartney has called "necessary to anyone's musical education".

Would this album have changed the world had it actually been released in 1967? Probably not a lot. It was probably too weird even for the summer of love. The 15 minute song sequences are far more abstract in their material than what the Beatles attempted on Abbey Road, and far less obviously structured. The public had enough trouble following the Beach Boys to their more serious efforts like Pet Sounds. I doubt they would have known what to do with the album. Some would have been influenced greatly by this album, but probably about the same as were influenced by the legend of the album and the glimpses of its brilliance that Brian allowed the world from time to time.

Now to wait a few months for the rerecorded version to actually be released, and continue to compare my edit of the album against Brian's live version, and of course hope against hope that a boxed set comes out properly documenting Brian's original ill-fated attempt at the album.

Anyways, Brian, thank you, you've left a smile on my face tonight. (yes, I'll end this post on a cheesy note)

Political thought #1 (well on here anyways)

2004-05-21T19:55:00.000-07:00

As a partisan, I want to see Kerry have every penny possible to fight Bush... but honestly, this is getting silly. The Republicans manipulated things so they would have their convention VERY late and maximize the effect of their money, and the Democrats are trying to minimize that advantage... though by at the very least very unorthodox means. (a convention where a person does all but accept the nomination, do we really want that to be the news story to come from it?!?!)

A simple (and thusly probably stupid) idea: since we broker most issues federally between the two largest parties, why not just agree in the future to switch off weeks just after the Olympics between the two parties. One election the Democrats get the 1st week after the Olympics, four years later the Republicans get that week. The conventions occur two weeks apart. (or maybe even one week apart to get those things over quicker)

Yes, this is probably unfair to third parties. Right now I don't care. I want this silliness over with.

The deluge of unchecked babble continues...

So it has begun

2004-05-21T16:51:00.000-07:00

I had always assumed that if I ever bother doing some sort of online journal, I would wait until I have my own domain and a nice account where I could reinvent the wheel and write my own scripts so that I can have the fun of debugging tons more code, and have eons of fun patching all of the invetitable flaws that would delete everything every other day...

Well, at least for now, that does not seem to be the case. Right now I doubt anyone who knows me in real life knows about this, so no one knows my horrible horrible secrets who is reading this. Rest assured they are horrible. (many pillow-cases are missing their tags to give you an idea)

However, as I saw only too well the last post got a comment within a few minutes of me posting, so apparently I am not only talking to myself (at least in theory), so it begins.. not much else to say, clever or not.

I'll start randomly ranting sooner rather than later most likely.

If the world will end in a whimper, how will this begin?

2004-05-21T16:36:00.000-07:00

I am not sure what if anything will be the result of my excursion into the world of blogging, but throwing caution (and whatever semblance of privacy I still hold) to the wind, it begins. For starters, I'm curious if anyone randomly reading this knows: is it really safe to buy books for college courses in the US from off-shore (in this case British) online sites. There's a mathematics book that I need for a Math class I have this summer. It is $114 in the bookstore or through Amazon.com, but as far as I can tell less than half that (even including shipping!) if I get it through Amazon.co.uk
The lengths of the books are the same, as is the publishing date, so this seems like the book would be exactly the same... and I am cheap.. (ask anyone who knows me)

More thoughts later when/if I ever have any.