Chiodos

It is a bit of a surprise that I hadn't yet mentioned this band on here. I suppose it's a good thing I didn't yet becuase when I first listen to a very good band I have a tendency to think they are the greatest thing in all of existance, and that is most of the time not that case. It is better to let the music sit for a while and then form an opinion. Well I've done that, and my high opinion of this band has actualy improved. (though that seemed impossible), they are in my top 10 favorite bands of all time, if not my top 5 (impressive considering there are a few hundred (a few meaning about 5) on that list)
If you aren't one for heavy music it's unlikely that this band would appeal to you, they play music of the genere Screamo. Most people have a disfavorable opinion of screamo. I, being in a screamo band, realize its full potential and awesomeness. no other music today is fostering as much inovation, or doing so as quickly.
Chiodos is one of those screamo bands which exemplifies this innovation. (others would be Finch, and Alexisonfire)
Also, Chiodos' live show is amazing. if anything their licks and riffs are tighter live, considering the intricacy and inherent dificulty of their recorded work this is an amazing feat. Also What i feel to be the most important aspect of any live performance, crowd response, is better than any i've ever seen. (or been a part of).
The crowd response defies words, and because of this I will not marginalize it with an explaination.
Surely this band will go down in history as one of the greatest bands of the 00s. (if not that then they will certianly be recognized for underapreciated brilliance)

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Rules for Political Discourse

Couldn't have said it better myself.
makes me feel Proudly Irresponsible (both articles refer to the same Bush speech)

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Rules for Political Discourse

Of Spies and Speeding Tickets

Well, I got my first Speeding ticket today. 71 in a 55 zone. now don't go and think that I go that fast all the time, especialy in the winter. I was a safe distance behind someone who was going that fast, and I was just keeping up. and of course the CHP only likes to pull over one speeder at a time. And of course it was me, the guy in back. over all the dealing with the Hypo wasnt that bad though. he was a nice guy, and I think I have had coffee with him durring my Thrid Ride with SEMSA (the local ambulance company, and a thrid ride is time you have in an ambulance when becoming and EMT) anyhow, I got the ticket. I don't know how much it cost me yet.
Now I'm not that mad, but I must admit that it has been on my mind since I got it at about 12:30 this after noon.
The only thing that got my dander up enough to keep the ticket out of my mind was seeing Alberto Gonzalas (the Clarence Thomas of Latinos) lie on national television (The News Hour with Jim Lerher).
What did he lie about? Spying. In particular electronic surveilance of phone calls. He claimed that the program which El Presidente instated which bypassed the FISA courts only monitored calls with suspected members of Al Queda, and those people conversing with them. The lie in this has to do with not being able to get a warrant. If, as our good friend Atourney General Speedy stated, people linked to Al Queda were the only targets a FISA warrant would be a non issue. the NSA wouldn't even have to get a warrant first, they could get one afterwards. If these people being monitored were truly tied to Al Queda then a warrant would not be hard to get. (it should also be noted that in it's entire existance the FISA court has rejected less than 10 warrants) Clearly not all the people monitored were truly connected to Al Queda.

yay for violating the Fourth Ammendment.

well at least googles with me on this stuff.

Proudly Irresponsible.

obviously this isn't exactly a new article. I wrote it the day after veteran's day. I think that despite its age this is still a relevant rebuke of the Bush administration's attitude towards disenters. I had posted this earlier on Google Groups, on the group Political Paridise (And yes I do realize that paradise is misspelled, but it is misspelled in the group name as well) When i posted this paper there it elicited no resoponse, I doubt it will be any different posting here, but it's nice to have my political things consolidated.

Proudly Irresponsible

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," President Bush told a largely military audience in Pennsylvania, in a speech to mark Veterans' Day. (The Guardian, Nov. 11 2005)

This is a rare situation where I agree completely with President Bush. It is irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war in Iraq began. It is clearly and completely irresponsible to claim that we went into Iraq with the sole intention of procuring Iraqi freedom. Whether or not it was a well agreed upon noting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is irresponsible to, after the war has already been launched, give the troops a new purpose.

Personally I am surprised that El Presidente even recognized the legitimacy of criticizing the war, through this administrations time in power they have shamelessly quelled negative responses to the war, in the form of hand selected audiences in “town-hall meetings”, in the form of designated “Free-speech Zones” (as if all of America weren't intended to be) to keep protesters away from political rallies, and by refusing to even listen to proponents of peace, including but not limited to Cindy Sheehan.

“The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," Mr. Bush said. American troops, the president went on, "deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them". (The Guardian)

yes, the troops absolutely need to know that their elected leaders continue to stand behind them. The troops need our total support. Why then do they not all have proper armor, why then are we still driving our 2 mpg SUV's creating a larger demand for oil and putting more pressure on our troops to sustain Iraqi oil pipelines, and why then do we remove all ceremony from the transportation of our fallen heroes from the place of their deaths to our own soil? Not only do we not fully support them by making sacrifices at home and by giving them the protection they need to properly do their jobs, we add insult to injury by not fully recognizing those who have died for their sacrifice, for their life.

If suggesting that criticism of a clearly tenuous war is irresponsible wasn't enough of an affront to American ideals, this speech was made on Veterans Day. A day meant to honor our fallen soldiers, a day meant to honor those who have given their time, or their limbs, or their lives to protect our nation. On this day Bush does nothing more than criticize his critics for trying to bring our troops back alive. And Bush has still not gone to a single soldiers funeral.

Next time you bring up the myriad of irresponsibilities which have been part of and which have surrounded this war, you may want to remember that you are culpable for it, and for many of it's failings. This seems to me to be just a little like the famed “mission accomplished” photo op.

Nice going.

The entire original coverage in the Guardian can be found here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1640964,00.html

how to use an introductory whisper

how to use an introductory whisper

Though it is a little known technique, I am constantly getting questions on how to use an introductory whisper. In that sense this title is quite blunt. But if you would, do notice that it is also very soft and hardly there. That is an introductory whisper.

You may be asking yourself “what is so special about that?” and this is, after all one of the questions I have set out to answer. What's so special is that it isn't special, or rather, that in being so ordinary as to illicit no response, it is nearly invisible, and therefore very special. It is special by being especially un-special.

Why wouldn't you want your introduction noticed? That is something I find rather obvious, but for those of you who are less informed on the general structure of our world I will explain: in many an introduction, something horrible, or controversial, or harmful is introduced. Why put yourself at risk by placing such a topic up front for everyone to see?

When such a topic is right upfront you open yourself to many unwanted attacks. For this purpose an introductory whisper is very valuable.

There have been rumors of people disappearing because of using an introductory whisper. This is of course because introductory whispers tend to make controversy disappear. I am going to refute that claim, though ideas do tend to disappear when using an introductory whisper, there are no documented cases of people disappearing from using an introductory whisp......

Zine Failure

I've recently been contemplating a zine a few friends and I once tried to start. About a year ago 2 friends and I decided that what our tiny little town needed was a Punk-Zine. We brainstormed about the structure the content, and just about everything that could possibly be of importance to the formation of a zine. I said I'd edit it and get to writing some articles, all they had to do was get articles to me. I ended up writing about 4 articles, not more than one draft of each, as there was no deadline and I had no material from the other contributors to add. well, they never submited anything. I don't really fault them, it's just a bit annoying.
I tried somthing similar in elementary school, but that publication got shut down by "the man", (the teacher), because it had selectivist tactics. but that's another story.
As far as the Punk Zine I tried to start, I recently stumbled upon those articles again. In retrospect they were alright, but nothing special. (I atribute that to them all being rough drafts, but i'm likely just being too kind to myself). I talked to one of the other colaborators about it. she doesn't seem interested anymore.
oh well. I guess it just wasn't in the cards.

Circadiana: Welcome

This is a great blog on sleep cycles. If you have time to read through it it has some great biological and sociological insight.


Circadiana: Welcome

City of God

I just watched the film City of God. Quite interesting. It's bassed in Brazil, in the slums of Rio De Jainero. It's about a kid who becomes a photographer. Sounds rather un-remarkable, but the filming is briliant. the cinematography makes you feel as if you're in the film. the camera dodges and darts and makes you feel a bit like time is moving especialy fast. some of the scenes feel so genuinely real that you feel like you're looking at after the fact photos, like those that are taken of bodies after a massacre.
it was a great film.
but that's not the entire point of this little diatribe. While watching it I couldn't help but think of another little gem telling of life in brazil I had encoutered before.
about 3 or 4 months ago, i read the book "Waiting for rain: the polotics and poetry of drought in northeastern Brazil" it was a book resulting from a Fullbright grant, and it was greatly interesting.
part of the reason City of God made this book pop into my mind, was the reality of the location of City of God. The City of God (the slum) was created partly for housing of propertyless drought refugees.
both are brilliant.
and I suggest you go out and watch City of God tomorow, and start reading Waiting for rain the day after.
seriously
get to it.

the pitfalls of patriotism

It seems to me the problem with patriotism is that it is love of country, not love of
countryman. The perinial favorite phrase of oh so many lovers of country is “my country
right or wrong.” this is such a horrid phrase. If your country is wrong make it right. It is more of a diservice to your country and, more importantly, country men to support your country's wrongness. It is better, and necessary, to stand up for putting your nation on the right track. It is our duty to stand up against the wrongs our country does. In fact anything less is treasonous.

That makes me wonder if patriotism is even what we claim it to be. In a book from 1973, entitled The Spirits of '76 there are essays on the nature of the American spirit, of the American attitude, and the first essay is one which I take to heart, an essay on the spirit of respect. Though this may seem an odd place to start, it is more evident why this is the beginning once you start reading the piece. The author wished to examine patriotism. The goal of his book was to examine spirits and ideals which he felt the nation had left behind, or was beginning to abandon, but in his research of patriotism he found one fairly startling thing “Patriotism has become all too closely related with war: the most patriotic people in history (like the Nazis) were always the most warlike and ruthless.” (Sloan 14) Perhaps Jingoism is a better word then?

The recent glut of patriotism is something which should be positive. Being proud of your country, being proud of ist citizenry, and proud of ist fertile plains is good, and even necessary, but taking on a holier than thou attitude about it is misguided, and undermines the very idea of patriotism, being united with your nation, and with your countrymen. And it comes as no surprise that this recent uprising of flag waving, yellow ribbon adorning, national anthem humming, patriotism comes on the heels of yet another war. Jingoism is a better word.

In case it's not clear, Jingoism, according to Webster's Dictionary, is “chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy.” If a pre-emptive war isn't belligerent I don't know what is. I certainly can’t say that jingoism is a Term most people use in common speech. Because it’s not too common of a word I’ll further define it. Jingoism is a state of unbridled nationalistic pride, oftentimes accompanied by brinksmanship, such as started World War One. This tendency towards extreme patriotism, or as I will refer to it in the future jingoism, is extremely troubling. Jingoism has overtaken our nation in such a manner, that it has taken more than two years and 2000 deaths for a withdrawal plan from a war which we started (first one in quite some time that we started) to gain reasonable support.

This Jingoism which has overtaken our nation is a problem, not only because of the wars it supports, but because it encumbers true patriotism. By this I mean that true patriots are those who question their nations policies, who despite their nations failings, and despite their dislike of its failings, decide to stay there.

Those people who said that they would move to Canada were Bush re-elected (I said I would consider applying to a foreign university were it to happen) but who decided to stay are a good example. They loved their nation so much, that despite their prior conviction to leave it, and their vehement dislike of the man running it, they decided to stay. This sort of devotion is important.

Something which may be brought up is the idea that by saying they would leave at all, those who threatened to retreat to Canada, were betraying their nation. An important aspect of that threat, though, is that those who threatened to leave never expected to need to. They had faith in the electoral process, or maybe undeserved hope, in its’ ability to eschew a president who had a largely failed first term. It is much like the villain in a common Davey Crocket story, the man who told Davey Crocket that if he was beaten by him, he would eat his hat. Obviously the man wasn’t expecting to lose, wasn’t expecting to have to eat his hat, else he wouldn’t have made such an outrageous statement. Nearly every human at one point or another gives an ultimatum to which they will not stick.

There are certain words in the English language which have a great deal of emotive force, such as love, and hate, but one I’d like to add to this list is patriot. With this one word you can suggest that a person is a good person, trustworthy, worthy of respect, someone who believes what you believe, and any number of other things. You can shut down an argument with outrage using the idea of patriotism as your cornerstone. “You're Damn Right: We're Questioning Your Patriotism” (RushLimbaugh.com)

Not only does the term patriotism have great emotive force, but much like the words terrorism and communism it can be used as an excuse for action. Any time something was to be done during the cold war the communists were brought up. Any time something is to be done now, terrorism is brought up. Any time someone wants to discredit you they question your patriotism. Whether or not their claims have any validity, they bring doubt to the conversation, and undermine whatever your point may be.

Because of this misuse of the term patriotism, and because of this situation in which jingoism masquerades as patriotism, I don’t believe that the term patriot has any validity anymore. Much like how the word fuck was quite acceptable in the time of Shakespeare, but is a curse word now, patriotism once meant something good, meant something of repute, but now is soiled, and indeed unusable in polite conversation.

A new term is necessary, Erik Sloan suggests “the word patriotism be substituted whenever possible, by the better word respect. I find respect to be the vanishing American spirit most worthy of return to our beloved nation.” Though respect is as good a word as any to replace patriotism in its current job, I would like to suggest yet another word, allegiance. This word is more accurate to what patriotism is supposed to mean, devotion to ones country and support of ones country. It does not make a value judgment on people who criticize their nations actions, and those who have allegiance to their nation don’t have to be fervent in order to be allegiant.

People of true allegiance are not afraid to right their nation when it is wrong, and are proud of where they come from. People of allegiance are people worthy of respect, and are accepting of their fellows’ ideas, and their fellows’ principles when they do not collide with the rights of others. People of allegiance is what we should all aspire to being.

WORKS CITED

Limbaugh, Rush.”You’re Damn Right: We’re Questioning Your Patriotism.” RushLimbaugh.com. 21^st Nov. 2005 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111005/home.guest.html

Sloan, Erik. The Spirits of ‘76. New York: Balantine Books, 1973.

Merriam-Webster. 20^th Nov. 2005. www.m-w.com