The Haida painting comes to life
04 September 2007
22 June 2007
Abortion nuts: please go away
RE: Why Pro Choice is Bad For Democrats
America is the most powerful empire the world has ever known. Yet our political discourse is dominated by religiously-tinged issues that, while important to some, really don't compare to the truly relevant issues of the day. Abortion is an issue that affects women's health, and strikes some people, as noted in this piece, as immoral. It's an issue people care about and its worth discussing. On a local level.
In the meantime, America contributes a 25% share to greenhouse gases with only 5% of the world's population; we have unleashed a pandora's box of horror in the middle east through Dick Cheney's personal enrichment program known as the Iraq war; the current crop of Presidential candidates have no serious solution to either problem. We also have a nuclear North Korea and an Iran hell-bent on joining the club. Thomas Friedman has been reporting on the death of 4 million people in the Congo. Special interests from big oil, big pharma, mega-agriculture, the prison-industrial complex, the defense industry, the gun lobby, etc., all are taking home our hard-earned tax dollars to either produce record profit or stay afloat. And here at home we've got a large swath of the population that casts its vote entirely based on the abortion Kabuki.
The fact that the American people have allowed our political discourse to be shaped by whatever conspiratorial forces, whether its the sickening Machiavellian maneuverings of Karl Rove, the detested 30 second sound bite that passes for campaign discourse, the cowardice of news organizations who present entertainment rather than real news (try watching CBC's "The National" if you live close enough to the border for an entirely different reality) -- it doesn't matter. It is totally depressing, not to mention a great danger to world peace, that the meaningful discussion of significant issues has been drowned out in a sea of local-level issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and Christmas parades. My feeling is that politicians have tacitly allowed this to happen, because in order to campaign, they need to fill their war chest with money from the special interests who all benefit from the smoke screen created by the focus on these types of issues. Al Gore is right in his new book, and if the American people don't wake up, there's going to be very, very serious consequences.
America is the most powerful empire the world has ever known. Yet our political discourse is dominated by religiously-tinged issues that, while important to some, really don't compare to the truly relevant issues of the day. Abortion is an issue that affects women's health, and strikes some people, as noted in this piece, as immoral. It's an issue people care about and its worth discussing. On a local level.
In the meantime, America contributes a 25% share to greenhouse gases with only 5% of the world's population; we have unleashed a pandora's box of horror in the middle east through Dick Cheney's personal enrichment program known as the Iraq war; the current crop of Presidential candidates have no serious solution to either problem. We also have a nuclear North Korea and an Iran hell-bent on joining the club. Thomas Friedman has been reporting on the death of 4 million people in the Congo. Special interests from big oil, big pharma, mega-agriculture, the prison-industrial complex, the defense industry, the gun lobby, etc., all are taking home our hard-earned tax dollars to either produce record profit or stay afloat. And here at home we've got a large swath of the population that casts its vote entirely based on the abortion Kabuki.
The fact that the American people have allowed our political discourse to be shaped by whatever conspiratorial forces, whether its the sickening Machiavellian maneuverings of Karl Rove, the detested 30 second sound bite that passes for campaign discourse, the cowardice of news organizations who present entertainment rather than real news (try watching CBC's "The National" if you live close enough to the border for an entirely different reality) -- it doesn't matter. It is totally depressing, not to mention a great danger to world peace, that the meaningful discussion of significant issues has been drowned out in a sea of local-level issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and Christmas parades. My feeling is that politicians have tacitly allowed this to happen, because in order to campaign, they need to fill their war chest with money from the special interests who all benefit from the smoke screen created by the focus on these types of issues. Al Gore is right in his new book, and if the American people don't wake up, there's going to be very, very serious consequences.
07 June 2007
Their Finest Hour
RE: Defeat's Killing Fields
To The Editor--
The author's of this article make many vague, grandiose statements that I think are a misguided attempt at a Roosevelt- or Kennedy-esque statement of vision and leadership. While I respect the courage in even professing to have an unambiguous vision in this time of wiffle-waffle sieve-like philosophical and ethical moorings, I find the lack of substance or adherence to anything resembling reality in their statement to be both tiresome and dangerous.
Some key points: What is meant by American defeat and victory? Is victory an indefinite occupation of a foreign land, or more South Korean like, an indefinite unliked but tolerated occupation? It is clear that regardless of the consequences, the American people have no stomach for the long-term occupation (10-20 year minimum seems to be the going rate) that creating a more civilized police state would require. Speaking of an Iraqi democracy is pure hubris at this stage in the game as the Iraqi parliament has largely left the building for the summer.
And in their discussion of the Vietnam war, they never address the plain and simple fact was that the reason we lost is the same reason the British lost when the American people decided they no longer wished to be subservient to the crown: we wanted to be free more than they wanted to suppress the rebellion. Victory then in the case of Vietnam or in the case of Iraq means imposing a reality the native people don't want, and "father knows best" doesn't work on the scale of nations -- especially nations whose boundaries were so capriciously drawn up by the British in the wake of WWI.
Such a shallow simplistic attitude is what got us into this mess -- well that and no lack of greed and avarice on the part of Mr. Dick Cheney -- and it certainly isn't going to get us out anytime soon. Who knows what would have happened in Southeast Asia if we hadn't gone in, but what's done is done, and what we've done in Iraq is unpardonable and irreconcilable, and it's time for these dreamers to wake up and realize that the only dignified thing to do is get out of the Empire game of conquest, go home with our tail between our legs, and let them figure it out for themselves.
And if America and her people are truly at war, then we will starve the beasts that foment the armies of destruction: we shall all, as one, in the most Churchillian manner, cease to have anything to do whatsoever with the black gold that finances the whole nefarious operation. We must stop buying oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia immediately. We must lead with bold vision in action, and not just foist our hopes on our volunteer army while the rest of us continue to shop on the web and kill ourselves slowly in an orgy of corn syrup and discount children's clothing from China. Shame on the American people for not having the vision or courage to truly do what is right, which is to give up our Imperial way of life that our Military might makes possible, and that costs so much in economic and human terms.
To The Editor--
The author's of this article make many vague, grandiose statements that I think are a misguided attempt at a Roosevelt- or Kennedy-esque statement of vision and leadership. While I respect the courage in even professing to have an unambiguous vision in this time of wiffle-waffle sieve-like philosophical and ethical moorings, I find the lack of substance or adherence to anything resembling reality in their statement to be both tiresome and dangerous.
Some key points: What is meant by American defeat and victory? Is victory an indefinite occupation of a foreign land, or more South Korean like, an indefinite unliked but tolerated occupation? It is clear that regardless of the consequences, the American people have no stomach for the long-term occupation (10-20 year minimum seems to be the going rate) that creating a more civilized police state would require. Speaking of an Iraqi democracy is pure hubris at this stage in the game as the Iraqi parliament has largely left the building for the summer.
And in their discussion of the Vietnam war, they never address the plain and simple fact was that the reason we lost is the same reason the British lost when the American people decided they no longer wished to be subservient to the crown: we wanted to be free more than they wanted to suppress the rebellion. Victory then in the case of Vietnam or in the case of Iraq means imposing a reality the native people don't want, and "father knows best" doesn't work on the scale of nations -- especially nations whose boundaries were so capriciously drawn up by the British in the wake of WWI.
Such a shallow simplistic attitude is what got us into this mess -- well that and no lack of greed and avarice on the part of Mr. Dick Cheney -- and it certainly isn't going to get us out anytime soon. Who knows what would have happened in Southeast Asia if we hadn't gone in, but what's done is done, and what we've done in Iraq is unpardonable and irreconcilable, and it's time for these dreamers to wake up and realize that the only dignified thing to do is get out of the Empire game of conquest, go home with our tail between our legs, and let them figure it out for themselves.
And if America and her people are truly at war, then we will starve the beasts that foment the armies of destruction: we shall all, as one, in the most Churchillian manner, cease to have anything to do whatsoever with the black gold that finances the whole nefarious operation. We must stop buying oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia immediately. We must lead with bold vision in action, and not just foist our hopes on our volunteer army while the rest of us continue to shop on the web and kill ourselves slowly in an orgy of corn syrup and discount children's clothing from China. Shame on the American people for not having the vision or courage to truly do what is right, which is to give up our Imperial way of life that our Military might makes possible, and that costs so much in economic and human terms.
03 June 2007
02 June 2007
It's a YESKING TING
It's a Yes King Ting where-ever you are. Anyone looking for the jamming summer mixtape that will not leave your box for the rest of the season... go to this site and download the mix.
01 June 2007
David Brooks, ever the self-hating Jew
My latest letter to my favorite Republican Jew:
Dear Mr. Brooks-
Sometimes you point out interesting scientific discoveries, such as the fact that we are all emotional irrational blobs of impulses that the rational mind pretends to have control over. Moving from there, I can see how you might find Al Gore's attempt at "rational discourse" discomfiting. It is after all an intellectual work that even references some rather well known academic scholarship. It reflects on you somewhat poorly to be so hostile to this sort of thing.
George Bush (well and Jimmy Carter too) has shown us what leadership from the heart looks like: it's not very effective, even if you do want to drink a beer with the guy. The role of our leaders is not to set the feel good agenda that you are so fond of, but to effectively and competently govern our country to insure the welfare of its citizens. This is often best achieved with a cold and calculating manner devoid of the irrational exuberance that brought us the war in Iraq, Terry Schiavo, Abu Gharib, New Orleans, etc.
Your faith in the Santa Claus like figure of the benevolent Republican really scares me, because you are smart enough to know better. I found myself wondering the other day if you had ever lived through an extended period of poverty or suffering. I am often troubled by Jews who are Republicans, it feels like something you only do if you're a self-hating Jew. My grandfather was a Republican who never went to synagogue and was obsessed with being a WASP. My assumption was that you hadn't truly suffered, and that maybe you weren't even Jewish, for all Jews suffer just by being alive, or surely you wouldn't fall for the "can't we all just get along with a nice warm hug" a la Mr. Rogers.
Dear Mr. Brooks-
Sometimes you point out interesting scientific discoveries, such as the fact that we are all emotional irrational blobs of impulses that the rational mind pretends to have control over. Moving from there, I can see how you might find Al Gore's attempt at "rational discourse" discomfiting. It is after all an intellectual work that even references some rather well known academic scholarship. It reflects on you somewhat poorly to be so hostile to this sort of thing.
George Bush (well and Jimmy Carter too) has shown us what leadership from the heart looks like: it's not very effective, even if you do want to drink a beer with the guy. The role of our leaders is not to set the feel good agenda that you are so fond of, but to effectively and competently govern our country to insure the welfare of its citizens. This is often best achieved with a cold and calculating manner devoid of the irrational exuberance that brought us the war in Iraq, Terry Schiavo, Abu Gharib, New Orleans, etc.
Your faith in the Santa Claus like figure of the benevolent Republican really scares me, because you are smart enough to know better. I found myself wondering the other day if you had ever lived through an extended period of poverty or suffering. I am often troubled by Jews who are Republicans, it feels like something you only do if you're a self-hating Jew. My grandfather was a Republican who never went to synagogue and was obsessed with being a WASP. My assumption was that you hadn't truly suffered, and that maybe you weren't even Jewish, for all Jews suffer just by being alive, or surely you wouldn't fall for the "can't we all just get along with a nice warm hug" a la Mr. Rogers.
30 May 2007
Letter to Patty Murray re: Liquid Coal (Liquid Stupid)
Dear Senator Murray:
I read in today's New York Times that Liquefied Coal is rapidly gaining support in Congress, roughly in parallel to the amount of lobbying money the coal industry has been handing out in the other Washington.
Surely a bit of hyperbole is called for in this latest blatant money-for-legislation kabuki that is in direct conflict with what this country needs to do to prepare for an energy policy that both limits our dependencies on other countries while paving the way, so to speak, for reduced emissions to reverse the effects of global warming.
Everything I've read about energy policy suggests that there is no silver bullet technology that will magically allow the continuation of limitless suburban sprawl, SUV driving, and other touchstones of a certain vision of a free America. Americans must learn to be more energy efficient above and beyond all other goals in order to be less dependent on foreign oil, and to reduce the damage we are doing to our planet.
That being said, as I'm sure you already know, there are a wide variety of alternative, truly renewable energy technologies. Our state is a progressive state, and our city is a progressive city. I was able to tick a box and kick in $12/month to use wind power! I was out at the Gorge this Memorial Day weekend and I smiled when I saw all the windmills up on the ridge. It was beautiful.
Thomas Friedman has repeatedly pointed out that setting a floor on the price of oil at $40/barrel is one way to spark innovation and investment in alternative energies. Why should only the coal industry benefit from this legislative largess? Indeed, all forms of energy should be catalyzed by this progressive bit of price control. Our state in particular has a number of potential technologies, from my personal favorite, cellulosic ethanol, to wind power.
I write to urge you to vote against any legislation around subsidizing liquid coal -- an obvious pork barrel debacle that goes against science and stifles the free market while promoting the least cost-effective use of my tax dollars and guaranteeing increased pollution, not to mention the destruction to communities that coal mining causes. Most coal communities in Kentucky and West Virgina don't even want the jobs that the industry offers, because they now know first hand the price they will pay -- the complete destruction of their land and way of life. The only beneficiaries will be industry titans, those with the nosebleed seats in that don't even exist anymore in today's Bush-designed tax brackets.
Sincerely
I read in today's New York Times that Liquefied Coal is rapidly gaining support in Congress, roughly in parallel to the amount of lobbying money the coal industry has been handing out in the other Washington.
Surely a bit of hyperbole is called for in this latest blatant money-for-legislation kabuki that is in direct conflict with what this country needs to do to prepare for an energy policy that both limits our dependencies on other countries while paving the way, so to speak, for reduced emissions to reverse the effects of global warming.
Everything I've read about energy policy suggests that there is no silver bullet technology that will magically allow the continuation of limitless suburban sprawl, SUV driving, and other touchstones of a certain vision of a free America. Americans must learn to be more energy efficient above and beyond all other goals in order to be less dependent on foreign oil, and to reduce the damage we are doing to our planet.
That being said, as I'm sure you already know, there are a wide variety of alternative, truly renewable energy technologies. Our state is a progressive state, and our city is a progressive city. I was able to tick a box and kick in $12/month to use wind power! I was out at the Gorge this Memorial Day weekend and I smiled when I saw all the windmills up on the ridge. It was beautiful.
Thomas Friedman has repeatedly pointed out that setting a floor on the price of oil at $40/barrel is one way to spark innovation and investment in alternative energies. Why should only the coal industry benefit from this legislative largess? Indeed, all forms of energy should be catalyzed by this progressive bit of price control. Our state in particular has a number of potential technologies, from my personal favorite, cellulosic ethanol, to wind power.
I write to urge you to vote against any legislation around subsidizing liquid coal -- an obvious pork barrel debacle that goes against science and stifles the free market while promoting the least cost-effective use of my tax dollars and guaranteeing increased pollution, not to mention the destruction to communities that coal mining causes. Most coal communities in Kentucky and West Virgina don't even want the jobs that the industry offers, because they now know first hand the price they will pay -- the complete destruction of their land and way of life. The only beneficiaries will be industry titans, those with the nosebleed seats in that don't even exist anymore in today's Bush-designed tax brackets.
Sincerely
Lawmakers: going where the money is, not the brains
Liquefied Coal Gains Support as Pork of the Future
As usual and what should come as no surprise, legislators are auctioning off your future to the stupidest, least effecient, and most expensive "alternative" energy technology ever: liquid coal. Made famous by the Germans who used it in WWII when no one would sell them any oil. Likely to double green house gases. The coal industry wants a staggering array of long-term handouts from you and me, while they are busy telling shareholders about the trillions of dollars worth of assets they will be sitting on once taxpayers prop up their half-baked idea. My favorite is that they want the Air Force to be forced to buy 780 million gallons a year for 25 years. Once again proving that Republicans (and Democrats too when the pork is in their backyard) believe that "Free market" means my money is free for them to take. Guaranteed to increase global warming, while doing nothing to encourage conservation: that's America!
As usual and what should come as no surprise, legislators are auctioning off your future to the stupidest, least effecient, and most expensive "alternative" energy technology ever: liquid coal. Made famous by the Germans who used it in WWII when no one would sell them any oil. Likely to double green house gases. The coal industry wants a staggering array of long-term handouts from you and me, while they are busy telling shareholders about the trillions of dollars worth of assets they will be sitting on once taxpayers prop up their half-baked idea. My favorite is that they want the Air Force to be forced to buy 780 million gallons a year for 25 years. Once again proving that Republicans (and Democrats too when the pork is in their backyard) believe that "Free market" means my money is free for them to take. Guaranteed to increase global warming, while doing nothing to encourage conservation: that's America!
24 May 2007
$4 Gas, this time to NYTimes
To the Editor--
High gas prices are a necessity to drive this country forward towards two critical goals for our country's long-term survival: cutting our dependency on petro-dictatorships like Iran, and reducing the negative environmental impact that our inefficient lifestyles have on the planet. To the first point, anything that reduces America's appetite for the stuff that fuels the economies of hostile nations is a positive from a national security stand point. As Thomas Friedman has frequently pointed out, the sooner the economy of countries like Iran are damaged by reduced oil sales, the sooner the mullahs will have to give up their death grip on their government.
Secondly, Eisenhower's interstate highway system has been the chief enabler for the contemporary American penchant for the 6 mpg SUV and the cheaply constructed energy apocalypse that is the McMansion. Anything that creates "free market" pressure to disincentivize the incredible damage that this way of life entails -- from the diesel transport required to bring goods to the outer reaches of minority-free exubrbia, to the single-occupant SUVs I pass everyday on my bike ride to work (yes I am so pious) -- must be seen as a painful but positive step towards a more sustainable way of life.
I think that Americans know that change is coming with regards to our inefficient lifestyles, but they don't want to have to pony up when the time comes to pay for it. The irony of course is that the whole oil industry is massively subsidized world-wide by the American taxpayer, as we foot the bill required to pay for our military to keep the world safe for the free flow of oil from the dictators to us. The true price of gas has been estimated to be anywhere from $5 to $15 a gallon. We should be so lucky that it has been so cheap for so long. Happy biking.
High gas prices are a necessity to drive this country forward towards two critical goals for our country's long-term survival: cutting our dependency on petro-dictatorships like Iran, and reducing the negative environmental impact that our inefficient lifestyles have on the planet. To the first point, anything that reduces America's appetite for the stuff that fuels the economies of hostile nations is a positive from a national security stand point. As Thomas Friedman has frequently pointed out, the sooner the economy of countries like Iran are damaged by reduced oil sales, the sooner the mullahs will have to give up their death grip on their government.
Secondly, Eisenhower's interstate highway system has been the chief enabler for the contemporary American penchant for the 6 mpg SUV and the cheaply constructed energy apocalypse that is the McMansion. Anything that creates "free market" pressure to disincentivize the incredible damage that this way of life entails -- from the diesel transport required to bring goods to the outer reaches of minority-free exubrbia, to the single-occupant SUVs I pass everyday on my bike ride to work (yes I am so pious) -- must be seen as a painful but positive step towards a more sustainable way of life.
I think that Americans know that change is coming with regards to our inefficient lifestyles, but they don't want to have to pony up when the time comes to pay for it. The irony of course is that the whole oil industry is massively subsidized world-wide by the American taxpayer, as we foot the bill required to pay for our military to keep the world safe for the free flow of oil from the dictators to us. The true price of gas has been estimated to be anywhere from $5 to $15 a gallon. We should be so lucky that it has been so cheap for so long. Happy biking.
22 May 2007
Daily screed to MoveOn
In response to the hideous email I found from them in my mail box whining about $4/gallon gas:
I was surprised and saddened to see your latest screed berating oil companies for supposedly "gouging" consumers with expensive gas prices. No one held a gun to anyone's head and told people to live a life of conspicuous consumption that included senseless hours of precious life wasted in a single occupant vehicle on a tax payer financed highway that is destroying the earth, one mcmansion at a time. It is ridiculous to blame oil companies for americans being the fat lazy SUV drivers that they are, and while I am no fan of the oil industry, i'm even less of a fan of people who can't take responsibility for the lifestyle choices they make at the expense of the health of the rest of the world, and anything that disincentivizes driving is a positive in my book. Americans need to be pushed to get out of the cars and their alienated suburban way of life. My 3 mile bike ride to work is a part of my self-righteous and ever so pious decision to choose to live in a way that i don't need a car. As the wealthiest nation on earth, we should be more generous and not treat the destruction of the environment as our right, and try to waste time manipulating congress on such a short-sighted vote winning strategy. You have turned into a shameful organization of borg-like zealots. You no longer think for yourselves and are just looking for something to be mad about. And I will look down my nose and piously judge you for it.
I was surprised and saddened to see your latest screed berating oil companies for supposedly "gouging" consumers with expensive gas prices. No one held a gun to anyone's head and told people to live a life of conspicuous consumption that included senseless hours of precious life wasted in a single occupant vehicle on a tax payer financed highway that is destroying the earth, one mcmansion at a time. It is ridiculous to blame oil companies for americans being the fat lazy SUV drivers that they are, and while I am no fan of the oil industry, i'm even less of a fan of people who can't take responsibility for the lifestyle choices they make at the expense of the health of the rest of the world, and anything that disincentivizes driving is a positive in my book. Americans need to be pushed to get out of the cars and their alienated suburban way of life. My 3 mile bike ride to work is a part of my self-righteous and ever so pious decision to choose to live in a way that i don't need a car. As the wealthiest nation on earth, we should be more generous and not treat the destruction of the environment as our right, and try to waste time manipulating congress on such a short-sighted vote winning strategy. You have turned into a shameful organization of borg-like zealots. You no longer think for yourselves and are just looking for something to be mad about. And I will look down my nose and piously judge you for it.
14 May 2007
How to bring booze into a music festival
A plan to smuggle in some booze into the venue from a guy in my lab who did it last year, successfully. Here it is: Before leaving, go to a U-brew store and buy some self-sealing bottle caps. When you cross the border, buy a bottle of clear booze (e. g. vodka, white rum). Also buy a flat of small water bottles. Put your booze into the water bottles and screw on the self-sealing caps. Voila! Now you can put your booze in with your water and bring it in to the show without any hassle. The only draw-back is that you have to buy mix or drink warm straight booze...
Dating Advice
I see some of my friends dating people that aren't up to snuff. While the below conversation was about a girl, it certainly (probably even more often) applies to girls dating guys too. Check it:
me: i want to see you /w a chick kicking YOUR ASS to take it to the next -- in a way that inspires you
me: a girl that you're learning from
me: rather than girls who shit on the couch but are polite about wiping it up
me: get a girl that's already housebroken!
me: i want to see you /w a chick kicking YOUR ASS to take it to the next -- in a way that inspires you
me: a girl that you're learning from
me: rather than girls who shit on the couch but are polite about wiping it up
me: get a girl that's already housebroken!
09 May 2007
08 May 2007
.jpg)
Letter to moveon.org
My concern with moveon.org as of late is that it has come to resemble the Tom DeLay school of politics -- the difference being that I agree with what action you would have people take. None the less, the format of the message, an over simplified "Do what we want you to or else," is no different than the Republican tactics since 1994.
To be more concrete, I think it is important not to just brow-beat Congress into bringing our troops home and mesh that desire with strategies to keep non-Republicans in office (a clearly necessary activity, however ugly), but to go more in-depth, to elevate the conversation. Iraq can be a lightning rod:
1. How did this country get to a point where we have a President who, along with his staff (Rummy, Condi, Cheney, Wolfie, Karl, etc) has repeatedly lied and not been impeached?
1a. I don't buy the "it's the media" argument answer to #1, though I enjoy reading Frank Rich's excoriation of the Washington press corps, whose feckless toadyism is only surpassed by the White House itself for its hubris. The American people are demanding that they get something for their money in Iraq. What can we do to engage the other half of eligible voters who were asleep at the wheel until they started to figure out that this war could go on forever?
2. What concrete steps will we take to de-escalate Iraq? What duty do we have if any to clean up the mess we leave behind? Given that we have no idea what will happen when and if we leave, what steps are being taken so that we can quickly and effectively respond to whatever catastrophes unfold?
2a. When will we start taking homeland security seriously, rather than rely on prayer and good luck that a major catastrophe hasn't been visited on us by our friends in the middle east?
2b. When will we ask the American people to sacrifice (seeing as how we are in a perpetual state of war), something politicians seem terrified of doing these days? Just as our children today are over indulged little brats, so does the elected official treat their constituent. Sacrifice in this case would mean the immediate cessation of all foreign oil purchases, period.
2c. Iraq has acted as a brilliant smokescreen obscuring all the many issues that are leading to our country's rapid fall from grace. When will these topics be discussed?
3. How will the Democratic party avoid becoming a power-obsessed monster more interested in cementing itself into power than governing?
Your emails are becoming more and more shrill and dogmatic and it worries me. While it's clear that the Republicans are the foot soldiers of Satan hmiself, what steps are being taken to avoid their mistakes?
To be more concrete, I think it is important not to just brow-beat Congress into bringing our troops home and mesh that desire with strategies to keep non-Republicans in office (a clearly necessary activity, however ugly), but to go more in-depth, to elevate the conversation. Iraq can be a lightning rod:
1. How did this country get to a point where we have a President who, along with his staff (Rummy, Condi, Cheney, Wolfie, Karl, etc) has repeatedly lied and not been impeached?
1a. I don't buy the "it's the media" argument answer to #1, though I enjoy reading Frank Rich's excoriation of the Washington press corps, whose feckless toadyism is only surpassed by the White House itself for its hubris. The American people are demanding that they get something for their money in Iraq. What can we do to engage the other half of eligible voters who were asleep at the wheel until they started to figure out that this war could go on forever?
2. What concrete steps will we take to de-escalate Iraq? What duty do we have if any to clean up the mess we leave behind? Given that we have no idea what will happen when and if we leave, what steps are being taken so that we can quickly and effectively respond to whatever catastrophes unfold?
2a. When will we start taking homeland security seriously, rather than rely on prayer and good luck that a major catastrophe hasn't been visited on us by our friends in the middle east?
2b. When will we ask the American people to sacrifice (seeing as how we are in a perpetual state of war), something politicians seem terrified of doing these days? Just as our children today are over indulged little brats, so does the elected official treat their constituent. Sacrifice in this case would mean the immediate cessation of all foreign oil purchases, period.
2c. Iraq has acted as a brilliant smokescreen obscuring all the many issues that are leading to our country's rapid fall from grace. When will these topics be discussed?
3. How will the Democratic party avoid becoming a power-obsessed monster more interested in cementing itself into power than governing?
Your emails are becoming more and more shrill and dogmatic and it worries me. While it's clear that the Republicans are the foot soldiers of Satan hmiself, what steps are being taken to avoid their mistakes?
24 April 2007
Corn subsidies support terrorism
Ok not exactly... but they do promote world instability (Mexico, Nigeria), they promote diabetes and obesity in America, and most importantly, as noted below, they funnel your tax dollars and mine (the professional classes who aren't rich enough to dodge paying taxes) into the hands of rural Republican voters (aka the spawn of Satan). Check out this awesome article on the cost of farm subsidies.
Here's a letter I wrote to Sen. Patty Murray on the issue:
Dear Senator Murray:
I am writing to you in regards to this year's farm bill legislation. As I am sure you are well aware, The Washington Post has conducted an in-depth investigation of where farm subsidy dollars are going and how they hurt far more Americans than they help. This weekend, the New York Times magazine ran an article on the implications of the farm subsidies on the American diet and its impact on our neighbor Mexico.
Preserving our rural communities is a big challenge but also represents an amazing opportunity to change the agenda. The current farm bill promotes waste, obesity, graft, and vote-buying -- the redder a county, the more farm money it gets, almost 1:1. The biggest problem as I see it is that the subsidy formula is only based on quantity. The more corn you grow, the more money you get.
This leads to the US government subsidizing soda pop ("liquid corn"), inefficient corn ethanol, and dosing the ground with destructive chemicals, instead of healthy local produce and efficient cellulosic ethanol products using renewable and sustainable farming techniques. Not only that, through subsidies, farmers are able to sell their products for less than what they cost to grow, leading to gross price distortions that have worldwide impact.
Mexicans are going to work on farms, but because of our farm bills, they work here instead of in Mexico. Cotton-growing countries in Africa can't compete with our subsidized corn. Tortillas in Mexico have grown very expensive as corn-ethanol becomes a hot product. Of course I get a chuckle of the "free market" Republicans showing once again that free to them means my tax money is free for the taking to subsidize their constituents.
I understand that things are more complex than they seem, and that there are a lot of politics involved, but your are my favorite senator and representative in this state and I have faith and confidence that you will do the right thing, which is usually the harder thing -- because that's what you usually do.
4/25/2007 Sen. Murray's response:
Dear Mr. Shapero:
Thank you for your letter regarding federal commodity payments to farmers and the 2007 Farm Bill. It was good to hear from you.
As you may know, for over seventy years the federal government has dispensed farm support payments to American farmers. Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation, certain farmers are eligible to receive financial payments for income support, disaster loss, and a number of conservation activities. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, funding for these payments is authorized through 2007. Reauthorization of these programs, as well as agricultural conservation initiatives, food stamp programs and a wide range of rural development, trade, research, farm credit and energy programs, will be considered during a 2007 Farm Bill.
The majority of these payments are in the form of commodity support, or income support that is dependent on market prices. Of approximately $16 billion dispensed to farmers annually, commodity support accounts for an overwhelming percentage of the funding. In 2002, for example, commodity support made up nearly 75% of all farm payments. This leaves a relatively small percentage of funding for disaster loss and conservation activities, two efforts that are critical to many farmers. Unfortunately, the majority of farmers in the greatest need of federal financial assistance do not benefit from these programs. It is estimated, for example, that 10% of all agricultural producers receive over 70% of commodity support payments. This 70% goes primarily to large farms and agribusinesses in just a handful of states, such as Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and others located in the nation’s Corn Belt. Of the commodities produced, corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, and rice are those that are most heavily supported. Most American farmers – including most in our state – receive very little, if any, commodity support. In fact, fruit and vegetable farmers receive very little support from USDA.
The system has also had an adverse effect on important conservation and research programs. With USDA’s focus on commodity payments, little is left for conservation efforts that give farmers tools to manage difficult environmental and regulatory challenges. What we have seen is more funding going to a small number of farmers in the Midwest and fewer resources for Washington state farmers. Instead of funding vital research, marketing programs, and conservation efforts that would help our state, USDA continues to focus its resources only on a small percentage of farmers with commodity payments.
Small family farms are a dying breed, and it is important that we do all we can to ensure their survival. I have always been a staunch supporter of efforts to protect the smaller, independent farms that are so vital to our state, helping to secure research funding, federal disaster assistance, and trade adjustment assistance during difficult times. I have also advocated increased funding for important conservation programs that are beneficial to both agricultural producers and our environment. Despite current fiscal constraints, these efforts will continue to be a priority of mine. Please know that as the Senate addresses these issues, I will keep your thoughts in mind.
If you would like to learn more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov. Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
P.S. I'd like to invite you to receive Patty Murray's Washington View, my weekly legislative update by e-mail. If you are interested in receiving my update, please sign up here: http://murray.senate.gov/updates.
Here's a letter I wrote to Sen. Patty Murray on the issue:
Dear Senator Murray:
I am writing to you in regards to this year's farm bill legislation. As I am sure you are well aware, The Washington Post has conducted an in-depth investigation of where farm subsidy dollars are going and how they hurt far more Americans than they help. This weekend, the New York Times magazine ran an article on the implications of the farm subsidies on the American diet and its impact on our neighbor Mexico.
Preserving our rural communities is a big challenge but also represents an amazing opportunity to change the agenda. The current farm bill promotes waste, obesity, graft, and vote-buying -- the redder a county, the more farm money it gets, almost 1:1. The biggest problem as I see it is that the subsidy formula is only based on quantity. The more corn you grow, the more money you get.
This leads to the US government subsidizing soda pop ("liquid corn"), inefficient corn ethanol, and dosing the ground with destructive chemicals, instead of healthy local produce and efficient cellulosic ethanol products using renewable and sustainable farming techniques. Not only that, through subsidies, farmers are able to sell their products for less than what they cost to grow, leading to gross price distortions that have worldwide impact.
Mexicans are going to work on farms, but because of our farm bills, they work here instead of in Mexico. Cotton-growing countries in Africa can't compete with our subsidized corn. Tortillas in Mexico have grown very expensive as corn-ethanol becomes a hot product. Of course I get a chuckle of the "free market" Republicans showing once again that free to them means my tax money is free for the taking to subsidize their constituents.
I understand that things are more complex than they seem, and that there are a lot of politics involved, but your are my favorite senator and representative in this state and I have faith and confidence that you will do the right thing, which is usually the harder thing -- because that's what you usually do.
4/25/2007 Sen. Murray's response:
Dear Mr. Shapero:
Thank you for your letter regarding federal commodity payments to farmers and the 2007 Farm Bill. It was good to hear from you.
As you may know, for over seventy years the federal government has dispensed farm support payments to American farmers. Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation, certain farmers are eligible to receive financial payments for income support, disaster loss, and a number of conservation activities. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, funding for these payments is authorized through 2007. Reauthorization of these programs, as well as agricultural conservation initiatives, food stamp programs and a wide range of rural development, trade, research, farm credit and energy programs, will be considered during a 2007 Farm Bill.
The majority of these payments are in the form of commodity support, or income support that is dependent on market prices. Of approximately $16 billion dispensed to farmers annually, commodity support accounts for an overwhelming percentage of the funding. In 2002, for example, commodity support made up nearly 75% of all farm payments. This leaves a relatively small percentage of funding for disaster loss and conservation activities, two efforts that are critical to many farmers. Unfortunately, the majority of farmers in the greatest need of federal financial assistance do not benefit from these programs. It is estimated, for example, that 10% of all agricultural producers receive over 70% of commodity support payments. This 70% goes primarily to large farms and agribusinesses in just a handful of states, such as Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and others located in the nation’s Corn Belt. Of the commodities produced, corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, and rice are those that are most heavily supported. Most American farmers – including most in our state – receive very little, if any, commodity support. In fact, fruit and vegetable farmers receive very little support from USDA.
The system has also had an adverse effect on important conservation and research programs. With USDA’s focus on commodity payments, little is left for conservation efforts that give farmers tools to manage difficult environmental and regulatory challenges. What we have seen is more funding going to a small number of farmers in the Midwest and fewer resources for Washington state farmers. Instead of funding vital research, marketing programs, and conservation efforts that would help our state, USDA continues to focus its resources only on a small percentage of farmers with commodity payments.
Small family farms are a dying breed, and it is important that we do all we can to ensure their survival. I have always been a staunch supporter of efforts to protect the smaller, independent farms that are so vital to our state, helping to secure research funding, federal disaster assistance, and trade adjustment assistance during difficult times. I have also advocated increased funding for important conservation programs that are beneficial to both agricultural producers and our environment. Despite current fiscal constraints, these efforts will continue to be a priority of mine. Please know that as the Senate addresses these issues, I will keep your thoughts in mind.
If you would like to learn more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov. Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
P.S. I'd like to invite you to receive Patty Murray's Washington View, my weekly legislative update by e-mail. If you are interested in receiving my update, please sign up here: http://murray.senate.gov/updates.
23 April 2007
Let's get reactionary
Letter to the NYTime, RE: a letter with a lot of chutzpah
I usually reflexively hate any limitation of rites, but I find the backwardness and pure chutzpah of this letter to bring out my right wing reactionary side...
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Wilentz is a convert to Islam and does not come from a traditionally Muslim region or country (he is the President of a convert center). While I agree with the principal thrust of Mr. Wilentz's assertions, one must recognize that the moment you set foot into an airport, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a different set of rules, some of which on their face seem to violate freedom of speech. For instance, any joking talk of bombs or weapons in an Airport will get you locked to a chair in a back office faster than you can say fascism.
The reality is that when traveling by air, if you are an Imam, you look like you are probably from a traditionally Muslim country -- perhaps a country where one of the 9/11 terrorists came from -- and you voice anti-American sentiment... you're asking for trouble. It takes an awful lot of hubris for Mr. Wilentz to argue that anyone can expect their Constitutional rights to fully apply in the airport. In other words, the Imam's behavior, in context, was provocative.
Substituting rabbis or Baptists is a rhetorical bait-and-switch. Ok, while some radicals out there like to characterize all Jews as Zionist terrorists, we can largely agree that most large scale recent acts of terrorism that have occurred in Western nations were perpetrated by Muslims -- not Jews or Baptists. I for one am a Jew who at best is not a knee-jerk Israel supporter.
There are also many other beliefs and practices of Muslim nations that are not tolerated in America -- we guarantee some freedoms, but not freedom to gang rape a woman who you accuse of immoral behavior; we don't allow women to be caned for not wearing a hijab; we don't allow honor killings; there's a raft of behavior that is not strictly in and of itself a part of Muslim teachings, but it is behavior that many practitioners engage in back home that is not tolerated here, religious or cultural tradition or now. I for one have no sympathy for the chuckleheads who didn't think twice about their actions. If I went to the airport, dressed like a mullah, and started saying "I hate George Bush, I hate America," very loudly, I would be very unhappy if they didn't lock me up.
I usually reflexively hate any limitation of rites, but I find the backwardness and pure chutzpah of this letter to bring out my right wing reactionary side...
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Wilentz is a convert to Islam and does not come from a traditionally Muslim region or country (he is the President of a convert center). While I agree with the principal thrust of Mr. Wilentz's assertions, one must recognize that the moment you set foot into an airport, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a different set of rules, some of which on their face seem to violate freedom of speech. For instance, any joking talk of bombs or weapons in an Airport will get you locked to a chair in a back office faster than you can say fascism.
The reality is that when traveling by air, if you are an Imam, you look like you are probably from a traditionally Muslim country -- perhaps a country where one of the 9/11 terrorists came from -- and you voice anti-American sentiment... you're asking for trouble. It takes an awful lot of hubris for Mr. Wilentz to argue that anyone can expect their Constitutional rights to fully apply in the airport. In other words, the Imam's behavior, in context, was provocative.
Substituting rabbis or Baptists is a rhetorical bait-and-switch. Ok, while some radicals out there like to characterize all Jews as Zionist terrorists, we can largely agree that most large scale recent acts of terrorism that have occurred in Western nations were perpetrated by Muslims -- not Jews or Baptists. I for one am a Jew who at best is not a knee-jerk Israel supporter.
There are also many other beliefs and practices of Muslim nations that are not tolerated in America -- we guarantee some freedoms, but not freedom to gang rape a woman who you accuse of immoral behavior; we don't allow women to be caned for not wearing a hijab; we don't allow honor killings; there's a raft of behavior that is not strictly in and of itself a part of Muslim teachings, but it is behavior that many practitioners engage in back home that is not tolerated here, religious or cultural tradition or now. I for one have no sympathy for the chuckleheads who didn't think twice about their actions. If I went to the airport, dressed like a mullah, and started saying "I hate George Bush, I hate America," very loudly, I would be very unhappy if they didn't lock me up.
19 April 2007
State's Rights
The recent Supreme Court decision directly impacts my home state, Washington, where Federal Law regarding "partial birth" abortions now trumps local state law. See today's Seattle PI. I love how state's only have rights for Republicans when it involves capital punishment, gun ownership, flying the dixie flag, or anything else offensive, dubious, mean spirited, or violent. But state's right are out the window for anything that rallys the base. These people are totally irrational hypocrites. How can you be for the death penalty and against abortion? I guess if you look at the fact that both are ways to make minorities suffer it makes some sense.
18 April 2007
Refuting the "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense from the gun nuts
As I predicted, the gun nuts are all saying that if VaTech had not been one of Virginia's few "gun free zones", the tragedy wouldn't have happened.
This argument is based on 2 tremendous fallacies. I intend to ignore my gut and go with some facts on this one.
1. Gun ownership is "Necessary but not sufficient"
Why does the gun lobby think that everyone can be trusted to get proper training on the use of a hand gun for personal defense? Further, why should we believe that everyone will know how to properly care for and maintain their guns safely? It is easier to get a gun than a driver's license in Virgina. Everyday we all see people on the road who very clearly should not have a driver's license. Now, imagine these same geniuses all had conceal-carry permits... Yeah, I thought so. If people handle their concealed weapons anything like their cars -- and currently it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun -- then we would all be shot up dead in the street
2. Criminals will acquire guns illegally anyway, so we all need guns
See 1 above. A gun in the home is 5 times more likely to be used on the residents of the home than a criminal, mostly because people do not correctly store their weapons or maintain them. They do not lock them, clean them, store ammo safely, etc. In addition, the VaTech killer bought his gun legally. No one had any reason to believe he was a criminal.
The gun nuts will try to tell you that ATF gun trace stats are cooked. The anti-gun crowd will tell you that 41% of guns turned up on NYC crime scenes (this number comes from 1993) came from Virgina. Well, that's for the 8% of guns that had traces run on them. So, question, why don't we run more traces? That's the real story -- the gun nuts won't tell you that ATF forbids local law enforcement from running traces themselves and prevents trace data from being shared. It's very hard to come up with any real numbers since the gun nuts have lobbied Congress very effectively to prevent anyone from knowing the real truth.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has started two sites, www.protectpolice.org and www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org to educate the public. The latter organization has set up sting operations in Virgina where under cover officers were able to make "straw" purchases. Read more about it in the local VA paper here. You can also read the official report here.
3. Criminals are rational
This is one of my favorites. The gun nuts argue that mass murderers like Cho are rational sane people. They wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, where is a local gun free zone where I can go massacre 33 people and then blow my brains out? Gosh, maybe my local university is the perfect place for my crime spree!" Perhaps it never occured to the gun nuts that people like Cho are CRAZY and they do not think things through in a rational manner. If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, they are probably crazy and disturbed enough not to think twice about laws and regulations.
And that kind of gets to the heart of it. These are the same people who support the war in Iraq and think that everyone is just like them. Many of them are very strong law-and-order types and are law abiding citizens themselves. They simply are so narrow minded and naive that they can't imagine that there are people out there in the world who don't respect law and order and who don't think things through like they do. Of course, they think they are rational and sensible in their argument, but they are obviously insane. Why do they really want to own guns so bad?
There's a lot of great information at the Brady Campaign website as well.
4. Right to carry laws deter crime
Again, this would be true in gun nut country, where everyone spent all their time polishing and cleaning their guns on their front porch, waiting, just waiting, for anyone to step on their front porch so they can shoot them. John Lott & David Mustard did a famous study that claimed to show that concealed-carry reduced crimes. Yes, they did -- in rural Florida! Read this rebuttal if you're motivated.
5. Bigotry and gun owners
Most gun owners are white, Republican men who live in the South and West. Do you know why they really want a gun? Because they are scared a black man will do them harm. These people still have pre-Civil war attitudes towards minorities, especially blacks, and view gun ownership as their only protection. These are the people who would wear white hoods in public if they could. They believe in lynching, the death penalty, and the right to life. They are incoherent, they are evil, and they need to be stopped. The same logic that has 1000's of innocent black men on death row getting killed is the same logic that has us in Iraq, and it's the logic of the right wing gun nut. As pointed out in previous posts, most gun nuts also live in counties that receive heavy federal subsidies for farming. They all live off of the fat that really comes from the gun industry. Gun companies give to congress and congress gives back to their constituencies. Follow the money and see for yourself.
Conclusion: The gun industry is dying, as most gun owners are old and dying. The gun companies know that the illegal arms trade is a huge source of their billions of dollars of revenue, and they, like all the other corporate American interests, will pay and pay and pay into the pockets of your elected officials to tap into Americans darkest side for their own profit.
This argument is based on 2 tremendous fallacies. I intend to ignore my gut and go with some facts on this one.
1. Gun ownership is "Necessary but not sufficient"
Why does the gun lobby think that everyone can be trusted to get proper training on the use of a hand gun for personal defense? Further, why should we believe that everyone will know how to properly care for and maintain their guns safely? It is easier to get a gun than a driver's license in Virgina. Everyday we all see people on the road who very clearly should not have a driver's license. Now, imagine these same geniuses all had conceal-carry permits... Yeah, I thought so. If people handle their concealed weapons anything like their cars -- and currently it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun -- then we would all be shot up dead in the street
2. Criminals will acquire guns illegally anyway, so we all need guns
See 1 above. A gun in the home is 5 times more likely to be used on the residents of the home than a criminal, mostly because people do not correctly store their weapons or maintain them. They do not lock them, clean them, store ammo safely, etc. In addition, the VaTech killer bought his gun legally. No one had any reason to believe he was a criminal.
The gun nuts will try to tell you that ATF gun trace stats are cooked. The anti-gun crowd will tell you that 41% of guns turned up on NYC crime scenes (this number comes from 1993) came from Virgina. Well, that's for the 8% of guns that had traces run on them. So, question, why don't we run more traces? That's the real story -- the gun nuts won't tell you that ATF forbids local law enforcement from running traces themselves and prevents trace data from being shared. It's very hard to come up with any real numbers since the gun nuts have lobbied Congress very effectively to prevent anyone from knowing the real truth.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has started two sites, www.protectpolice.org and www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org to educate the public. The latter organization has set up sting operations in Virgina where under cover officers were able to make "straw" purchases. Read more about it in the local VA paper here. You can also read the official report here.
3. Criminals are rational
This is one of my favorites. The gun nuts argue that mass murderers like Cho are rational sane people. They wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, where is a local gun free zone where I can go massacre 33 people and then blow my brains out? Gosh, maybe my local university is the perfect place for my crime spree!" Perhaps it never occured to the gun nuts that people like Cho are CRAZY and they do not think things through in a rational manner. If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, they are probably crazy and disturbed enough not to think twice about laws and regulations.
And that kind of gets to the heart of it. These are the same people who support the war in Iraq and think that everyone is just like them. Many of them are very strong law-and-order types and are law abiding citizens themselves. They simply are so narrow minded and naive that they can't imagine that there are people out there in the world who don't respect law and order and who don't think things through like they do. Of course, they think they are rational and sensible in their argument, but they are obviously insane. Why do they really want to own guns so bad?
There's a lot of great information at the Brady Campaign website as well.
4. Right to carry laws deter crime
Again, this would be true in gun nut country, where everyone spent all their time polishing and cleaning their guns on their front porch, waiting, just waiting, for anyone to step on their front porch so they can shoot them. John Lott & David Mustard did a famous study that claimed to show that concealed-carry reduced crimes. Yes, they did -- in rural Florida! Read this rebuttal if you're motivated.
5. Bigotry and gun owners
Most gun owners are white, Republican men who live in the South and West. Do you know why they really want a gun? Because they are scared a black man will do them harm. These people still have pre-Civil war attitudes towards minorities, especially blacks, and view gun ownership as their only protection. These are the people who would wear white hoods in public if they could. They believe in lynching, the death penalty, and the right to life. They are incoherent, they are evil, and they need to be stopped. The same logic that has 1000's of innocent black men on death row getting killed is the same logic that has us in Iraq, and it's the logic of the right wing gun nut. As pointed out in previous posts, most gun nuts also live in counties that receive heavy federal subsidies for farming. They all live off of the fat that really comes from the gun industry. Gun companies give to congress and congress gives back to their constituencies. Follow the money and see for yourself.
Conclusion: The gun industry is dying, as most gun owners are old and dying. The gun companies know that the illegal arms trade is a huge source of their billions of dollars of revenue, and they, like all the other corporate American interests, will pay and pay and pay into the pockets of your elected officials to tap into Americans darkest side for their own profit.
17 April 2007
Cellulosic Ethanol in LA
An interesting article discussing the hopes and pitfalls of cellulosic ethanol right here in the US. Presents the upside of the product, which is largely that once we figure out how to break it down cheaply (the hard part), it can be made out of waste products (the easy part -- they're free).
16 April 2007
really earning your turns
This weekend I rented a split board (thanks Tree@Prior!!!) and really, really earned my turns making my way into (and up) the mountains by my own power.
13 March 2007
Republican Defintion of Free Market
For Republicans, "free" means tax money that comes from rich liberals with college degrees. Check it out:
See Taxes paid by state, per capita.
Complete data on which states are giving and which states are taken to produce my above summary came from the Tax Foundation. Thanks.
- 25 out of 31 total red states get more Federal tax $ than they contribute
- 13 out of 18 blue states give more Federal tax $ than they receive
- The Top 12 Federal tax contributing states are blue
- The Top 8 Recipients of Federal tax money are Red
- Blue states, not including MD and VA (where much of the Federal Gov't. is located), paid $1.4 trillion more than they got back
- Red states received $800 billion more than they paid
- Blue States lost $8916 per capita
- Red States gained $8,499 per capita
- Red states take in $17,415 more per capita than blue in Federal tax dollars
See Taxes paid by state, per capita.
Complete data on which states are giving and which states are taken to produce my above summary came from the Tax Foundation. Thanks.
12 March 2007
Where the Pork Goes
My overlay of the two maps is quite interesting . Basically shows that areas with the heaviest agricultural pork vote Republican -- so it's "welfare" when it goes to Democrats, and it's "helping America" when it goest to Republicans.
Map showing $ amount of farm subsidies received by county.
Map showing blue and red by county.
Conclusion: Red counties are enthralled with the welfare money provided to them by blue county voters via the Republican party. Write to your congress person and demand an end to farm subsidies now. Let the free market work. If Brazil can provide sugar-derived ethanol more cheaply than American farmers can provide it from corn, they should suffer the consequences and be incented to grow a crop that is profitable without you and me paying for it.
03 March 2007
Dear Senator Grassley: get out of the way
Dear Senator Grassley--
I was sad to read your comments in today's New York Times about the White House's latest intiative with Brazil. One of the fundamental values of the Republican party used to be that of free-market enterprise. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post has been reporting on the record growth of farm subsidies, including $1.3 billion to people who don't farm.
Rather than trying to protect the corporate agriculture industry that has destroyed a true American way of life, I urge you to consider looking at non-corn-based ethanol alternatives that can bring back the American family farm. Any kind of cellulosic product, from sugar to switch grass to trees, can be grown quickly and cheaply and without federal subsidies.
The Republican party has become exactly what it was supposed to be against: a machine that siphons tax dollars away from tax payers and towards special interest groups. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is who they give my tax money to -- because it sure isn't me.
This country is in danger of a financial catastrophe because we'be borrowed ourselves into oblivion to pay for the Medicare Drug benefit, billions in farm subisidies, a failed war in Iraq (instead of the promised war on terror), and tax cuts for the rich etc. Meanwhile most American tax payers do not benefit from any of these policies, and the recent volatility in the stock market highlights how vunerable we really are.
I say all of this because you are in a position to do something about it. Stop protecting your corporate benefactors from free market competition. Stop spending my tax dollars to prop up companies and business practices that can't survive the free market your party is supposed to stand for. Get out of the way of progress please.
I was sad to read your comments in today's New York Times about the White House's latest intiative with Brazil. One of the fundamental values of the Republican party used to be that of free-market enterprise. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post has been reporting on the record growth of farm subsidies, including $1.3 billion to people who don't farm.
Rather than trying to protect the corporate agriculture industry that has destroyed a true American way of life, I urge you to consider looking at non-corn-based ethanol alternatives that can bring back the American family farm. Any kind of cellulosic product, from sugar to switch grass to trees, can be grown quickly and cheaply and without federal subsidies.
The Republican party has become exactly what it was supposed to be against: a machine that siphons tax dollars away from tax payers and towards special interest groups. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is who they give my tax money to -- because it sure isn't me.
This country is in danger of a financial catastrophe because we'be borrowed ourselves into oblivion to pay for the Medicare Drug benefit, billions in farm subisidies, a failed war in Iraq (instead of the promised war on terror), and tax cuts for the rich etc. Meanwhile most American tax payers do not benefit from any of these policies, and the recent volatility in the stock market highlights how vunerable we really are.
I say all of this because you are in a position to do something about it. Stop protecting your corporate benefactors from free market competition. Stop spending my tax dollars to prop up companies and business practices that can't survive the free market your party is supposed to stand for. Get out of the way of progress please.
02 March 2007
What I'm listening to now
Time flies right? I was listening to DJ Riz on KEXP and he played this incredibly smooth track, "Did I Do Wrong?" by one Clara Hill. Turns out King Britt produced it, duh. Off the chain. Off the chain. So another beatport session was born.
Between the Lines feat. Bajka - Bonobo
You've probably heard Bonobo if you've heard any downtempo beats in the last 5 years or so. This track really stands out with a deep 60's french crime heist orchestra vibe, re-worked into a hard Jay-Dee with jazz hits kind of vibe. Bajka has a perfect 60's but updated "these boots are made for walking" kind of vocal. High quality downtempo shows that there's always a time and place for good funky grooves that go beyond the ordinary. Perfect to get your set started, as the song itself goes from sparse and minimal, building up with a nice tambourine groove that feels like the tempo is going to pick up.
Did I Do Wrong (Original King Britt mix) - Clara Hill
I'm not usually a fan of the Sonar Kollectiv vibe outside of Jazzanova, as it feels like the line between intellectually powered elevator music has been crossed... but this is King Britt we're talking about. Ms. Hill has a fantastic soul voice, and King Britt's smokey sultry minimal groove is just... smoking! I got home from hearing this on the radio (thank you again Riz) and immediately gave Riz props for brightening my night and the airwaves. After days on end of terribly uninspired indie rock, hearing something like this just makes your week. This is the kind of track they would play at the Loft and just let it play the way they do. After 9 minutes you're still sad it's over. Very verbed out drums, pulsing electro 80s beats layered just behind them, some soft pads and Clara Hill's gorgeous voice. It all goes off once the crispy 808 hats come in, SIZZLA!
Restless Times feat. Stefan Leisering (Recloose Mix) - Clara Hill
Well of course I had to find out what else Ms. Hill was up to and I found this mix. One of Recloose's better mixes. Standard weirdness, but the balance of power lies in the funky houseish beat, syncopated sine wave bassline, and weird key hits. Good driving music.
Flickermood - Forss
This sounds like some guy went nuts with a sampler and Serrato and made this crazy cut up downtempo contraption. Walks the fine line between the bad side of Four Tet (i.e. too many noises and messy) and the good side -- beautiful chaos from a world that is right next to the everyday but just outside it.
Between the Lines feat. Bajka - Bonobo
You've probably heard Bonobo if you've heard any downtempo beats in the last 5 years or so. This track really stands out with a deep 60's french crime heist orchestra vibe, re-worked into a hard Jay-Dee with jazz hits kind of vibe. Bajka has a perfect 60's but updated "these boots are made for walking" kind of vocal. High quality downtempo shows that there's always a time and place for good funky grooves that go beyond the ordinary. Perfect to get your set started, as the song itself goes from sparse and minimal, building up with a nice tambourine groove that feels like the tempo is going to pick up.
Did I Do Wrong (Original King Britt mix) - Clara Hill
I'm not usually a fan of the Sonar Kollectiv vibe outside of Jazzanova, as it feels like the line between intellectually powered elevator music has been crossed... but this is King Britt we're talking about. Ms. Hill has a fantastic soul voice, and King Britt's smokey sultry minimal groove is just... smoking! I got home from hearing this on the radio (thank you again Riz) and immediately gave Riz props for brightening my night and the airwaves. After days on end of terribly uninspired indie rock, hearing something like this just makes your week. This is the kind of track they would play at the Loft and just let it play the way they do. After 9 minutes you're still sad it's over. Very verbed out drums, pulsing electro 80s beats layered just behind them, some soft pads and Clara Hill's gorgeous voice. It all goes off once the crispy 808 hats come in, SIZZLA!
Restless Times feat. Stefan Leisering (Recloose Mix) - Clara Hill
Well of course I had to find out what else Ms. Hill was up to and I found this mix. One of Recloose's better mixes. Standard weirdness, but the balance of power lies in the funky houseish beat, syncopated sine wave bassline, and weird key hits. Good driving music.
Flickermood - Forss
This sounds like some guy went nuts with a sampler and Serrato and made this crazy cut up downtempo contraption. Walks the fine line between the bad side of Four Tet (i.e. too many noises and messy) and the good side -- beautiful chaos from a world that is right next to the everyday but just outside it.
01 March 2007
quote of the day
A reporter asked Tony Snow yesterday what the attack on the Bagram Air Base that targeted the vice president and killed at least 23 people said about the Taliban’s strength. “I’m not sure it says anything,” he replied.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/opinion/28dowd.html
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/opinion/28dowd.html
28 February 2007
this is how we do
tearing up lines in revelstoke, aw yeah. back once again from the renegade master.
18 January 2007
Brasil's Ethanol Story
With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs
At the dawn of the automobile age, Henry Ford predicted that ''ethyl alcohol is the fuel of the future.'' With petroleum about $65 a barrel, President Bush has now embraced that view, too. But Brazil is already there.
This country expects to become energy self-sufficient this year, meeting its growing demand for fuel by increasing production from petroleum and ethanol. Already the use of ethanol, derived in Brazil from sugar cane, is so widespread that some gas stations have two sets of pumps, marked A for alcohol and G for gas.
In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush backed financing for ''cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass'' with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years.
But Brazil's path has taken 30 years of effort, required several billion dollars in incentives and involved many missteps. While not always easy, it provides clues to the real challenges facing the United States' ambitions.
Brazilian officials and scientists say that, in their country at least, the main barriers to the broader use of ethanol today come from outside. Brazil's ethanol yields nearly eight times as much energy as corn-based options, according to scientific data. Yet heavy import duties on the Brazilian product have limited its entry into the United States and Europe.
Brazilian officials and scientists say sugar cane yields are likely to increase because of recent research.
''Renewable fuel has been a fantastic solution for us,'' Brazil's minister of agriculture, Roberto Rodrigues, said in a recent interview in São Paulo, the capital of São Paulo State, which accounts for 60 percent of sugar production in Brazil. ''And it offers a way out of the fossil fuel trap for others as well.''
Here, where Brazil has cultivated sugar cane since the 16th century, green fields of cane, stalks rippling gently in the tropical breeze, stretch to the horizon, producing a crop that is destined to be consumed not just as candy and soft drinks but also in the tanks of millions of cars.
The use of ethanol in Brazil was greatly accelerated in the last three years with the introduction of ''flex fuel'' engines, designed to run on ethanol, gasoline or any mixture of the two. (The gasoline sold in Brazil contains about 25 percent alcohol, a practice that has accelerated Brazil's shift from imported oil.)
But Brazilian officials and business executives say the ethanol industry would develop even faster if the United States did not levy a tax of 54 cents a gallon on all imports of Brazilian cane-based ethanol.
With demand for ethanol soaring in Brazil, sugar producers recognize that it is unrealistic to think of exports to the United States now. But Brazilian leaders complain that Washington's restrictions have inhibited foreign investment, particularly by Americans.
As a result, ethanol development has been led by Brazilian companies with limited capital. But with oil prices soaring, the four international giants that control much of the world's agribusiness -- Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Born, Cargill and Louis Dreyfuss -- have recently begun showing interest.
Brazil says those and other outsiders are welcome. Aware that the United States and other industrialized countries are reluctant to trade their longstanding dependence on oil for a new dependence on renewable fuels, government and industry officials say they are willing to share technology with those interested in following Brazil's example.
''We are not interested in becoming the Saudi Arabia of ethanol,'' said Eduardo Carvalho, director of the National Sugarcane Agro-Industry Union, a producer's group. ''It's not our strategy because it doesn't produce results. As a large producer and user, I need to have other big buyers and sellers in the international market if ethanol is to become a commodity, which is our real goal.''
The ethanol boom in Brazil, which took off at the start of the decade after a long slump, is not the first. The government introduced its original ''Pro-Alcohol'' program in 1975, after the first global energy crisis, and by the mid-1980's, more than three quarters of the 800,000 cars made in Brazil each year could run on cane-based ethanol.
But when sugar prices rose sharply in 1989, mill owners stopped making cane available for processing into alcohol, preferring to profit from the hard currency that premium international markets were paying.
Brazilian motorists were left in the lurch, as were the automakers who had retooled their production lines to make alcohol-powered cars. Ethanol fell into discredit, for economic rather than technical reasons.
Consumers' suspicions remained high through the 1990's and were overcome only in 2003, when automakers, beginning with Volkswagen, introduced the ''flex fuel'' motor in Brazil. Those engines gave consumers the autonomy to buy the cheapest fuel, freeing them from any potential shortages in ethanol's supply. Also, ethanol-only engines can be slower to start when cold, a problem the flex fuel owners can bypass.
''Motorists liked the flex-fuel system from the start because it permits them free choice and puts them in control,'' said Vicente Lourenço, technical director at General Motors do Brasil.
Today, less than three years after the technology was introduced, more than 70 percent of the automobiles sold in Brazil, expected to reach 1.1 million this year, have flex fuel engines, which have entered the market generally without price increases.
''The rate at which this technology has been adopted is remarkable, the fastest I have ever seen in the motor sector, faster even than the airbag, automatic transmission or electric windows,'' said Barry Engle, president of Ford do Brasil. ''From the consumer standpoint, it's wonderful, because you get flexibility and you don't have to pay for it.''
Yet the ethanol boom has also brought the prospect of distortions that may not be as easy to resolve. The expansion of sugar production, for example, has come largely at the expense of pasture land, leading to worries that the grazing of cattle, another booming export product, could be shifted to the Amazon, encouraging greater deforestation.
Industry and government officials say such concerns are unwarranted. Sugar cane's expanding frontier is, they argue, an environmental plus, because it is putting largely abandoned or degraded pasture land back into production. And of course, ethanol burns far cleaner that fossil fuels.
Human rights and worker advocacy groups also complain that the boom has led to more hardships for the peasants who cut sugar cane.
''You used to have to cut 4 tons a day, but now they want 8 or 10, and if you can't make the quota, you'll be fired,'' said Silvio Donizetti Palvequeres, president of the farmworkers union in Ribeirão Preto, an important cane area north of here. ''We have to work a lot harder than we did 10 years ago, and the working conditions continue to be tough.''
Producers say that problem will be eliminated in the next decade by greater mechanization. A much more serious long-term worry, they say, is Brazil's lack of infrastructure, particularly its limited and poorly maintained highways.
Ethanol can be made through the fermentation of many natural substances, but sugar cane offers advantages over others, like corn. For each unit of energy expended to turn cane into ethanol, 8.3 times as much energy is created, compared with a maximum of 1.3 times for corn, according to scientists at the Center for Sugarcane Technology here and other Brazilian research institutes.
''There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to improve that ratio to 10 to 1,'' said Suani Teixeira Coelho, director of the National Center for Biomass at the University of São Paulo. ''It's no miracle. Our energy balance is so favorable not just because we have high yields, but also because we don't use any fossil fuels to process the cane, which is not the case with corn.''
Brazilian producers estimate that they have an edge over gasoline as long as oil prices do not drop below $30 a barrel. But they have already embarked on technical improvements that promise to lift yields and cut costs even more.
In the past, the residue left when cane stalks are compressed to squeeze out juice was discarded. Today, Brazilian sugar mills use that residue to generate the electricity to process cane into ethanol, and use other byproducts to fertilize the fields where cane is planted.
Some mills are now producing so much electricity that they sell their excess to the national grid. In addition, Brazilian scientists, with money from São Paulo State, have mapped the sugar cane genome. That opens the prospect of planting genetically modified sugar, if the government allows, that could be made into ethanol even more efficiently.
''There is so much biological potential yet to be developed, including varieties of cane that are resistant to pesticides and pests and even drought,'' said Tadeu Andrade, director of the Center for Sugarcane Technology. ''We've already had several qualitative leaps without that, and we are convinced there is no ceiling on productivity, at least theoretically.''14 January 2007
What I'm Listening to Now
You should be able to get these tracks at any mp3 download site. Some are in iTunes, some are on Beatport. The theme of my selection is "something for everybody". I used to be one of those facist deep-house DJs that would only play one kind of music that drove everyone who wasn't high on something to tears of boredom. I quit DJ'ing for years, but recently have been getting back into buying music. With the dawn of pay-for-mp3 downloads, you can get access to the entire world's greatest record stores and pay $1-2 for just incredible tracks, without having to deal with asshole record store clerks. What could be better? These cuts are the kind of cuts you should be able to play for anyone who loves music and they will feel it, spanning genres and styles and adding great songwriting and tight production.
(Artist - Track - Album)
Tita Lima - Catatonica - 11:11
This is some seriously classy Brazilian pop music. Totally classy and clean without feeling anesthetized and non-threatening, this track features a seriously syncopated groove with a hip-hop backbone (that reminds me of Dr. John) that'll have you ready to be chilling in the shade on the beach with a caipirinha in no time. Subtle funky clav lines mesh with funk guitar and Brazilian percussion elements, and seamlessly blend into a more traditional electro-Samba chorus. There's a depth and soulfulness to this track that transcends the Ibiza chill-out lounge vibe that too many projects like this end up with.
Chicken Lips - Eggy's Pause Button (Idjut Boys remix) - You're Playing Dirty
This is part of a series of Chicken Lips tracks that were re-issued in small quantities with exclusive remixes in 2002 or so. Now with the wonder of internet mp3 downloads, every punter can get a piece. I love this amazing age of more accessible good music -- I hope it translates into more informed crowds ready to be taken on deeper journeys. Because it takes a more knowledgeable crowd to appreciate this out space disco dub found on this track. All the Chicken Lips elements are in place, but taken to the outer limits of some hashish fueled bliss out zone -- a brickish 70's dubby disco bassline, way dubbed out and delayed beats, and unidentifiable chick vocals way back in the mix. You could rock this at 4am for a seriously niced up crowd, or you can just pass out to it afterwards.
Circus - I Know You EP
This whole EP is just off the chain funky, and has a little something for everyone's forward-looking tastes. The original mix features Lyrics L, the female MC who blew the lid off of Seiji's "Loose Lips" cut back in '02, along with Bugz' MC Motet. This track is definitely on a similar wavelength as "Loose Lips", but it's a little deeper and layered. There's a more moody tension between dark and light in this track, but what a lot of blah blah blah, it's dancefloor broken beat that will drive any dancer into a frenzy with its pumped beat and killer MC styles. This track is enough to sell the whole thing, but then you also get the Inverse Cinematics remix, which is as funky as the original mix. This is more of a super deep techy house track, with some Dego-ish keys and an absolute rumbler trouser-rattler bassline that doesn't quit. But wait, there's more! You also get "Signs", which is a quality rub up of soulful brokeny beats, with some great vocals from L'enfant Terrible. This track can work in the lounge or on the dancefloor and further highlights the skills of the Circus crew.
Headman - It Rough feat. Tara - It Rough
Headman - On and On feat. Tara - On
Definitely on the same wavelength as the Chicken Lips vibe, but with some very ESG-ish vocals on top, if the girls from ESG had nicer vocals. Dubby deep disco. "It Rough" is the more straightforward track, while "On and On" features the more funky and driving sound that is very "Downtown 81" but updated. Bits of "Eye of the Tiger" guitar way in the back with a dubby disco bassline and vocals that are vaguely reminiscent of what A Certain Ratio would sound like with a chick vocal. Both of them will let you get your '80s on without feeling like a snarling but non-threatening remake of shit old people like me remember dimly from elementary school.
Freaky Flow - Same Thing - Smell the Glove
Freaky Flow - Say It With Me feat. Ylook - Smell the Glove
T Dot's own Freaky Flow has been representing the world-famous T.O. drum 'n bass sound ever since I can remember. Thankfully I didn't know that before checking this out, where I was surprised with some really quality deep tracks that transcend genre with their soul. "Same Thing" is a really innovative track that feels very smart, informed by classic house song writing, a bit of 80's electro in the back of the beat, and it sounds like the producer has also been keeping up with the latest broken beat rythym programming styles. The result is a unique yet very accessible soulful cut for all crowds that you won't feel guilty about. Along those same lines, "Say It With Me" is your classic Mary-style hip-hop beat with sultry R&B vocals. The use of the Headhunter's break that you've heard many times before is done in a new way, the the TO MC stylings give the track a unique feel. As my girlfriend said, "Why is it so hard to find good R&B that isn't corny?" This track kind of answers that question, as hitting that sweet spot between pop hook and cheese can be really tough and not many do it as well as this track does.
Jesse Rose and Rob Mello - Do Ya Wanna - More Than One
Just some classic tech-house dopeness with a sexy vocal, great pulsing square wave bass, and analoguey keys.
Trevor Loveys - Outside In EP
I didn't realize that this guy was one half of "House of 909", but it figures he's been in the game for that long, because this is some of the most well-produced dance music I've ever heard. Incredibly lush production, amazing effects, and beat programming that'll knock your socks off. There's something here for everybody once again. The Sinbad remix of "Sambooka" is just totally off the chain with very 50's funky mamba horns, heavy duty percussion groove, a broken style backbeat, some funk guitar -- the kind of stuff chicks just love because they know it's so funky! Never mind that it's some of the most innovative and fun dance music I've heard in a while -- they don't care! The ring modulator or vocoded or whatever weirdness keyboard bit in the middle of the track is so out and funky and innovative. But on top of that, you get a slew of other great tracks to go with. The original mix of Sambooka is just as good as the remix, but places a lot more emphasis on the percussion, the guitar lick, and the very funky bassline. A trippier and more minimal mix that is for more advanced crowds. Then you also get "Strange But Not", a very funky techy track that has the feel of John Tejada but is more musical. The Max Fresh remix gives it more of a broken beat feel and is the more accessible of the two. Very tasty. You also get a nice little downtempo track, "Nobody" to round out this very strong release.
(Artist - Track - Album)
Tita Lima - Catatonica - 11:11
This is some seriously classy Brazilian pop music. Totally classy and clean without feeling anesthetized and non-threatening, this track features a seriously syncopated groove with a hip-hop backbone (that reminds me of Dr. John) that'll have you ready to be chilling in the shade on the beach with a caipirinha in no time. Subtle funky clav lines mesh with funk guitar and Brazilian percussion elements, and seamlessly blend into a more traditional electro-Samba chorus. There's a depth and soulfulness to this track that transcends the Ibiza chill-out lounge vibe that too many projects like this end up with.
Chicken Lips - Eggy's Pause Button (Idjut Boys remix) - You're Playing Dirty
This is part of a series of Chicken Lips tracks that were re-issued in small quantities with exclusive remixes in 2002 or so. Now with the wonder of internet mp3 downloads, every punter can get a piece. I love this amazing age of more accessible good music -- I hope it translates into more informed crowds ready to be taken on deeper journeys. Because it takes a more knowledgeable crowd to appreciate this out space disco dub found on this track. All the Chicken Lips elements are in place, but taken to the outer limits of some hashish fueled bliss out zone -- a brickish 70's dubby disco bassline, way dubbed out and delayed beats, and unidentifiable chick vocals way back in the mix. You could rock this at 4am for a seriously niced up crowd, or you can just pass out to it afterwards.
Circus - I Know You EP
This whole EP is just off the chain funky, and has a little something for everyone's forward-looking tastes. The original mix features Lyrics L, the female MC who blew the lid off of Seiji's "Loose Lips" cut back in '02, along with Bugz' MC Motet. This track is definitely on a similar wavelength as "Loose Lips", but it's a little deeper and layered. There's a more moody tension between dark and light in this track, but what a lot of blah blah blah, it's dancefloor broken beat that will drive any dancer into a frenzy with its pumped beat and killer MC styles. This track is enough to sell the whole thing, but then you also get the Inverse Cinematics remix, which is as funky as the original mix. This is more of a super deep techy house track, with some Dego-ish keys and an absolute rumbler trouser-rattler bassline that doesn't quit. But wait, there's more! You also get "Signs", which is a quality rub up of soulful brokeny beats, with some great vocals from L'enfant Terrible. This track can work in the lounge or on the dancefloor and further highlights the skills of the Circus crew.
Headman - It Rough feat. Tara - It Rough
Headman - On and On feat. Tara - On
Definitely on the same wavelength as the Chicken Lips vibe, but with some very ESG-ish vocals on top, if the girls from ESG had nicer vocals. Dubby deep disco. "It Rough" is the more straightforward track, while "On and On" features the more funky and driving sound that is very "Downtown 81" but updated. Bits of "Eye of the Tiger" guitar way in the back with a dubby disco bassline and vocals that are vaguely reminiscent of what A Certain Ratio would sound like with a chick vocal. Both of them will let you get your '80s on without feeling like a snarling but non-threatening remake of shit old people like me remember dimly from elementary school.
Freaky Flow - Same Thing - Smell the Glove
Freaky Flow - Say It With Me feat. Ylook - Smell the Glove
T Dot's own Freaky Flow has been representing the world-famous T.O. drum 'n bass sound ever since I can remember. Thankfully I didn't know that before checking this out, where I was surprised with some really quality deep tracks that transcend genre with their soul. "Same Thing" is a really innovative track that feels very smart, informed by classic house song writing, a bit of 80's electro in the back of the beat, and it sounds like the producer has also been keeping up with the latest broken beat rythym programming styles. The result is a unique yet very accessible soulful cut for all crowds that you won't feel guilty about. Along those same lines, "Say It With Me" is your classic Mary-style hip-hop beat with sultry R&B vocals. The use of the Headhunter's break that you've heard many times before is done in a new way, the the TO MC stylings give the track a unique feel. As my girlfriend said, "Why is it so hard to find good R&B that isn't corny?" This track kind of answers that question, as hitting that sweet spot between pop hook and cheese can be really tough and not many do it as well as this track does.
Jesse Rose and Rob Mello - Do Ya Wanna - More Than One
Just some classic tech-house dopeness with a sexy vocal, great pulsing square wave bass, and analoguey keys.
Trevor Loveys - Outside In EP
I didn't realize that this guy was one half of "House of 909", but it figures he's been in the game for that long, because this is some of the most well-produced dance music I've ever heard. Incredibly lush production, amazing effects, and beat programming that'll knock your socks off. There's something here for everybody once again. The Sinbad remix of "Sambooka" is just totally off the chain with very 50's funky mamba horns, heavy duty percussion groove, a broken style backbeat, some funk guitar -- the kind of stuff chicks just love because they know it's so funky! Never mind that it's some of the most innovative and fun dance music I've heard in a while -- they don't care! The ring modulator or vocoded or whatever weirdness keyboard bit in the middle of the track is so out and funky and innovative. But on top of that, you get a slew of other great tracks to go with. The original mix of Sambooka is just as good as the remix, but places a lot more emphasis on the percussion, the guitar lick, and the very funky bassline. A trippier and more minimal mix that is for more advanced crowds. Then you also get "Strange But Not", a very funky techy track that has the feel of John Tejada but is more musical. The Max Fresh remix gives it more of a broken beat feel and is the more accessible of the two. Very tasty. You also get a nice little downtempo track, "Nobody" to round out this very strong release.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)