![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pavel's puzzles
Apr. 4th, 2008 09:59 amSome of you know Pavel from LambdaMOO, and some of you know him from PlaceWare, and some of you may know he really, really likes puzzles, but did you know he sells them? I didn't. The Ooo Tray looks cool.
Oh, by the way, the band's still together. We're finally playing our first San Francisco show on Thursday, and if you're in the area and reading this, give me your phone number, so I can call you and beg you to come--we could really use some audience. We're also booking two short and unprofitable tours along the west coast this summer. More details on that as they arrive. Oh yeah and someday the CD will be ready.
This post about the practical argument for banning torture as policy ends like so:
Thought I had something more to say, but maybe not. Good post, anyway. The one I linked to, I mean. Not this one.
It’s a lesson as old as time – unchecked executive power is made to be abused.I think that's just right. The whole purpose of unchecked power is abuse. If there is no potential for abuse, there's no need to keep that potential in check.
Thought I had something more to say, but maybe not. Good post, anyway. The one I linked to, I mean. Not this one.
Blogged with Flock
Confidential to Glenn in Portland
Mar. 10th, 2008 11:00 amOne of my favorite movies at Cinequest this year was The Call of Cthulhu, a faithful new adaptation by the H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society in the style of a 1920's silent movie (although, unfortunately, with a synthetic orchestra playing the score). Actually, looking at the web site, I guess it premiered in Portland three years ago, so this is old news. Anyway, I enjoyed it, and it's available on DVD.
By contrast, I don't like this video at all--I can hardly believe the same people are behind it. The music is cheesy and the singers are flat, but mostly there's a vast difference between "yes we can" and the simple chanting of the candidate's name. The first motto is about the power of many people, working together for the common good: "Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change." The second, well, it's a call for the power of a leader. It's a dream of a demagogue.
There's something to be said for the new video's structure, built around the individual and more concrete hopes of many voices, where the other one was constructed entirely out of the candidate's words. And some of those voices say what I want to hear--"he's gonna be our president, he's gonna speak for us--'cause we put him there", and not least Obama's own reiteration that "we are the ones we've been waiting for". But that constant shouting of his name raises all my hackles. I guess I'll never be a really good follower.
There's something to be said for the new video's structure, built around the individual and more concrete hopes of many voices, where the other one was constructed entirely out of the candidate's words. And some of those voices say what I want to hear--"he's gonna be our president, he's gonna speak for us--'cause we put him there", and not least Obama's own reiteration that "we are the ones we've been waiting for". But that constant shouting of his name raises all my hackles. I guess I'll never be a really good follower.
freedom on the march
Feb. 19th, 2008 03:52 pmTop five stories when I tuned into the NPR newscast this afternoon:
- Fidel Castro announces the end of his presidency in Cuba
- Voters in Pakistan reject Pervez Musharraf, installed by military coup in 1999
- Kosovo declares independence
- U.S. Supreme Court rejects warrantless wiretapping lawsuit
- Amtrak officials to begin carrying automatic weapons
Blogged with Flock
Apparently it's big news that Barack Obama used some words and ideas in a speech that had previously been used by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. At least, NPR kept reporting on it when I was listening in the car. Obama acknowledged he got the idea from Patrick, and said it would've been a good idea to credit him. Patrick said he and Obama talk a lot about ideas for speeches, and he didn't think a citation was necessary. (Since we're on the subject, I'm paraphrasing only slightly from here.) But Clinton campaign adviser Howard Wolfson says that's not good enough.
Anyway, here's my idea: Let's keep the campaign for the presidency focused on who'd be better at leading the free world, and leave the ruminations on plagiarism to people who have something interesting to say.
Wolfson said the plagiarism charge still holds because listeners go in with the assumption that Obama's speeches are original, unless credit is given. "So I think it's fine that Deval Patrick said that," Wolfson said. "But what I'm concerned about is that the public has an expectation that Sen. Obama's words are his own."Out in the blog world people are digging up possible plagiarism in Clinton speeches, so we can play who-did-it-first. But I just don't get it. These people employ speechwriters. They are speaking words that other people wrote all the time. Why is Wolfson shocked, shocked, that Obama doesn't just make everything up himself?
Anyway, here's my idea: Let's keep the campaign for the presidency focused on who'd be better at leading the free world, and leave the ruminations on plagiarism to people who have something interesting to say.
Blogged with Flock
super duper tuesday
Feb. 4th, 2008 02:31 pmIn case anyone was wondering, yes, I was disappointed when Edwards left the race--he was, among other things, the candidate who most often said what I believed. But I was also a little relieved. With the California primary approaching, I was facing once again the usual dilemma: Do I vote for the person I really want as president--even though he's unlikely to win--or do I look at the likely winners, and choose the one I like better? Now I don't have to make that decision, at least.
So now I'll be voting for Obama, and without qualms. It seems to me that Obama--with his ability to inspire audiences, his background as community organizer, his recognition of the power of "we," not just "I"--actually has a chance to make the country work better. It's not by any means a sure thing. But with Obama, it's possible.
Clinton is simply too embedded in various establishments, enmities, and entanglements to provide anything but more of the same. Like our first President Clinton, she'll make some steps backward, some forward, but she'll basically maintain the status quo. And the status quo is broken.
Two things that haven't affected my decision, but did move me to post about it: xkcd's endorsement ("Obama has shown a real commitment to open government") and will.i.am (et al.)'s video ("Yes We Can").
So now I'll be voting for Obama, and without qualms. It seems to me that Obama--with his ability to inspire audiences, his background as community organizer, his recognition of the power of "we," not just "I"--actually has a chance to make the country work better. It's not by any means a sure thing. But with Obama, it's possible.
Clinton is simply too embedded in various establishments, enmities, and entanglements to provide anything but more of the same. Like our first President Clinton, she'll make some steps backward, some forward, but she'll basically maintain the status quo. And the status quo is broken.
Two things that haven't affected my decision, but did move me to post about it: xkcd's endorsement ("Obama has shown a real commitment to open government") and will.i.am (et al.)'s video ("Yes We Can").
another take on change
Jan. 16th, 2008 10:08 amRachel Maddow, quoted by Digby:
Hillary believes the thing that needs to be changed is that Bush needs to be out and the Democrats need to be back in there. Edwards believes the thing that needs to be changed is that the moneyed interests and the lobbyists need to be taken out of the political game. Obama believes that what needs to change is that he needs to be the president because he is a personally unifying character...Democrats are being asked whether they believe in party, in which case they should be for Hillary, if they believe in power they should be for Edwards and if they believe in personality, they should vote for Obama.Don't know what I think about that.
speaking of bipartisanship
Jan. 12th, 2008 10:51 amDid you know that 18% of Republicans think Bush should be impeached? Not just impeached, but impeached and removed from office.
the current landscape
Jan. 12th, 2008 12:56 amEric Martin pretty well summarizes my view of the Democratic presidential campaign, but here's my version:
I guess there's more to it than rhetoric; it's about theories of change*. ( Read more... )
- Like everybody else and their brother, I'm ready for some change.
- So that's what all the candidates are offering in their stump speeches.
- On policy, Obama and Clinton seem about equally moderate.
- Edwards is significantly more progressive than either.
- But Obama has more successfully adopted the rhetoric of change.
I guess there's more to it than rhetoric; it's about theories of change*. ( Read more... )
coincidence?
Jan. 7th, 2008 08:47 pmI kept seeing the date in different places, and now I think I've got it all figured out: Lots of musicians I've played with have shows this Saturday. As far as I know, this is interesting only to me, which is why I decided to post it to LiveJournal.
- DeatHat is playing at the House of Shields in San Francisco. For this show we'll be your typical power trio: bass, xylophone, and guzheng. The guzheng, and miscellaneous percussion, will be played by our friend Jason (not pictured).
- At Barefoot, our friend Zach will be playing with his new trio Kids with Beards. Zach is a member of Corpus Callosum, and for a while I was sort of in the band, but due to scheduling conflicts and such I think we only played one show together. Still, it counts! Unless I'm wrong and that show never actually happened.
- Finally, Vermillion Lies, whose accordionist I have sometimes been, is playing at... CAESAR'S PALACE. For the Russian New Year.
not with pencil and paper
Jan. 5th, 2008 12:07 pmOn the whole, I like Karl Rove's taste in books. What is this uncomfortable sensation?
Tin Cat PDX
Oct. 30th, 2007 04:11 pmSo yeah, I'll be in Portland this weekend, practically, although actually I'll be across the river in Vancouver, and worse yet I'll be spending the whole weekend in a hotel. But a hotel with music! Here's what I posted on MySpace:
We're playing acoustic-style at the FAR-West conference this weekend in Vancouver, WA (not actually Portland, sorry for the bait and switch!). Late night showcases are open to the public, but you have to come to the contra dance (Friday) or old-timey dance (Saturday) first. Which, you know, might be awesome. The dances run from 9:30 to 11.
There are lots of other good acts, most of them folky, playing at the conference, and $5 will get you in for the dance and as much music as you can drink. Here's our schedule:Friday 10:30-11, room 311
Here's the conference web site:
Saturday 11-11:30, room 344
Saturday 11:30-12:30, room 309
Saturday 1:00-1:30, room 309 again
Hey, before I forget: My band Tin Cat is playing some late-night showcases at a folk music conference next weekend (!) (Nov. 2-4) in Portland. Showcases are open to the public for $5, but there's a little bit of procedure to get in. Anyone want the details? We're pretty good!
(no subject)
Sep. 29th, 2007 05:16 pmI've been meaning to get my hands on Daniel Brook's book The Trap, but in the meantime I just read his 2004 article on "How Sweden Tweaked the Washington Consensus". I was struck by this passage:
( More about economics.... )
Just barely related: I found out yesterday that the company that made my Nord Electro 2 keyboard--which I really, really like--is only about 20 people, and they make all their gear at their own factory in Sweden. I guess I'm used to thinking of electronic equipment makers as giant conglomerates like Sony, because that took me by surprise.
In the United States, it is often labor unions that call for tariffs and subsidies to protect unionized industries. Not so in Sweden. "We don't want to sell T-shirts made in Sweden because people can't live on those wages. It's good that those industries have moved away," explained Social Democratic Parliament member Mikael Damberg, sounding very unlike an American congressmember of either party.Brook makes the connection between this far-sighted view and "equitable distribution of corporate profits"--basically, if the T-shirt factory shuts down, workers can trust that the system will support them until they find work doing something else.
( More about economics.... )
Just barely related: I found out yesterday that the company that made my Nord Electro 2 keyboard--which I really, really like--is only about 20 people, and they make all their gear at their own factory in Sweden. I guess I'm used to thinking of electronic equipment makers as giant conglomerates like Sony, because that took me by surprise.
thom hartmann
Sep. 27th, 2007 11:56 amI don't know if you guys listen to talk radio, but I want to recommend Thom Hartmann. I caught two segments of today's program, and they exemplified what I like about the show.
The first guest I heard was David Harsanyi, talking about his new book Nanny State. It's a libertarian(ish) take on things like smoking bans and food regulation, and Hartmann, a progressive, doesn't share his perspective on much. But the conversation was reasonable and interesting and, you know, reality-based. Harsanyi admitted that individual freedom wasn't the only legitimate basis for public policy; Hartmann acknowledged that some kinds of government intervention are excessive. They were arguing, but with an understanding that there's a rational common ground between them.
Later I heard Edward J. Larson, author of Magnificent Catastrophe. This is an academic history of the election of 1800, and he and Hartmann were trading gossipy stories about Adams and Jefferson, delineating the philosophical differences between the Federalists and the Republicans, describing the debates over national security, religion in civic life, and freedom of expression, implying connections with today's political landscape without belaboring the point. They were having a good time talking about the election of 1800. On commercial radio.
And it's almost always interesting. Hartmann grounds political debate in a historical perspective even when he doesn't have historians as guests, and while he's passionate in his convictions, he's uncommonly respectful of opposing viewpoints (but, fortunately, not of craven political spin). The show is on Air America (and elsewhere), 9-12 weekdays around here. Check your local listings.
The first guest I heard was David Harsanyi, talking about his new book Nanny State. It's a libertarian(ish) take on things like smoking bans and food regulation, and Hartmann, a progressive, doesn't share his perspective on much. But the conversation was reasonable and interesting and, you know, reality-based. Harsanyi admitted that individual freedom wasn't the only legitimate basis for public policy; Hartmann acknowledged that some kinds of government intervention are excessive. They were arguing, but with an understanding that there's a rational common ground between them.
Later I heard Edward J. Larson, author of Magnificent Catastrophe. This is an academic history of the election of 1800, and he and Hartmann were trading gossipy stories about Adams and Jefferson, delineating the philosophical differences between the Federalists and the Republicans, describing the debates over national security, religion in civic life, and freedom of expression, implying connections with today's political landscape without belaboring the point. They were having a good time talking about the election of 1800. On commercial radio.
And it's almost always interesting. Hartmann grounds political debate in a historical perspective even when he doesn't have historians as guests, and while he's passionate in his convictions, he's uncommonly respectful of opposing viewpoints (but, fortunately, not of craven political spin). The show is on Air America (and elsewhere), 9-12 weekdays around here. Check your local listings.
go jerry sanders
Sep. 21st, 2007 09:33 pmSan Diego mayor Jerry Sanders--a Republican who during his campaign supported civil unions for gay couples but not marriage--announced this week that he would sign a city resolution supporting marriage equality. In his announcement, he called civil unions "a separate-but-equal institution," spoke of his daughter, friends and staff who are gay, and said he "couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship, their very lives, were any meaningful than the marriage I share with my life Rana." Here's the video, if you'd like to watch him tear up.
