Interesting letter to the New York Times today:
To the Editor:"Doctors See Way to Cut Risks of Suffering in Lethal Injection" (front page, June 23) points to the mounting evidence indicating that at least some prisoners have suffered horribly as they were put to death by lethal injection, awake and racked by pain but unable to move to let anybody know.
Oh no, how fucking horrible. Last time I checked, pretty much the only crime normally punished by death in this country is murder, so...yeah, not seeing a problem.
States have failed to ensure that they execute prisoners in a way that protects them from the risk of excruciating pain, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
WHAT?!
I'm going to read that again to make sure it says what I think it did.
...
...
What the hell are you smoking? Since when does the Constitution guarantee the right not to suffer excruciating pain? Is it in the same section as the right to privacy and the right not to look at religious symbols in public spaces?
These failures are documented in "So Long as They Die: Lethal Injections in the United States," the April 2006 Human Rights Watch report that I co-wrote.
That's a shock.
Public debate on the humane execution of prisoners underscores the death penalty's real Catch-22: that any time a state executes its prisoners, it participates in an act of cruel and unusual punishment.
Let's see here...it's not really unusual, since it happens on a regular basis as the result of legal proceedings, so that leaves us with the implication that executing prisoners by lethal injection is cruel.
Wow.
You know, by that logic, anyone who disagrees with the prison system can say that incarceration is cruel and unusual. In addition, since hanging was practiced during the time period that the Constitution was written, I really doubt that capital punishment is unconstitutional.
In any case, this logic also means that the consequences of an accident can be used as a justification for eliminating a practice. Considering how many precautions are taking during an execution to make sure the convicted murderer doesn't feel a damn thing, I find it hard to believe that the practice itself is cruel. This is similar to people using Abu Ghraib as evidence that U.S. policy consists of regular abuse and torture, despite the fact that people were punished for the incident. The fact that a procedure sometimes goes wrong doesn't make the procedure itself wrong.
I think another letter sums it up rather nicely:
To the Editor:Re "Doctors See Way to Cut Risks of Suffering in Lethal Injection":
The fact that this headline even exists in the year 2006 makes me sure that this country can no longer lead the world in progress.
I'm inclined to agree, although probably not for the same reason. Because when people are capable of being this concerned about whether or not a murderer feels pain during the process of dying, it kind of indicates that those people aren't ready to deal with the war we're fighting at the moment.
...Although it does kind of explain why some are so dedicated to making sure that we treat terrorists the same way we would treat lawful combatants...
Unfortunately, too many members of my generation take everything people like this say as at least worthy of further consideration, if not the truth:
Blink 182 Star Latest Celebrity To Question 9/11Blink 182 star Tom DeLonge has followed in the footsteps of Charlie Sheen by becoming the latest celebrity to publicly doubt the official version of events behind 9/11 and voice his belief that the attacks were an inside job.
Well, that settles it. A dude who has dedicated his life to making shitty pop-punk music and assaulting the ears of normal people with his high-pitched, whiny singing voice thinks that Bush had something to do with 9/11. The jig is up, guys!
DeLonge is the lead singer in Blink 182, a southern Californian punk/pop quartet that has had two US Billboard number one selling albums and whose 1999 album Enema of the State went platinum five times over.
Why do I get the feeling that this fact is somewhat related to the fact that people are dumb enough to believe this "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit?
During a hosting spot on a San Diego’s KAVA-FM radio station, DeLonge talked with Professor James Fetzer about evidence of 9/11 inside involvement."We do know that the buildings came down in a fashion extremely similar to a controlled demolition of a building...
...we do know that expertise that is needed to fly those gigantic planes into that exact location could never have been achieved by someone that just learned how to fly a small plane, said DeLonge."
And how do "we" "know" this, dipshit? It seems to me that pointing a large plane at a large building would be fairly easy if you knew how to control said plane. Apparently, you've never played a flight simulator.
Discussing the failure of NORAD to enact standard operating procedure and intercept the planes and Norman Mineta's testimony about Cheney's orders 'still standing' - DeLonge stated, "Cheney knew that the planes are coming in and he capped the order to leave it alone so it could hit."
Wow, apparently, Cheney is also psychic. After all, hijacked planes are flown into buildings on a regular basis. The hijackers never do anything crazy like diverting to another airfield and then letting the hostages live. You know.
"It's so weird how our own government did it to us, 9/11 was not perpetrated by a bunch of people that just learned how to fly planes," said DeLonge.
It's so weird that anyone could take this, or you, seriously.
Highlighting consistent Zogby polls that show an increasing acceleration of awareness to alternative explanations behind 9/11, DeLonge stated, "We're talking about 60-70% of the American people are actually starting to think that there's a different story, why are we as Americans sitting back and letting this happen to us?"
Of course, polls control reality, so whatever people believe thanks to idiots like you becomes the truth in retrospect, right? And your projection of conspiracy theories onto the populace means that they all question the 9/11 explanations for the exact same reasons as you, right? RIGHT?
"Why would we sit back and let our country be defined this way?," said DeLonge.
Defined what way? As a bunch of brainless buffoons who would rather believe that a huge government conspiracy took place to perpetrate a terrorist attack rather than, you know, the actual terrorist leader who admitted on both audio and video tape to carrying it out?
DeLonge was careful to counter potential accusations that he was simply engaging in partisan rhetoric."I want to come out right now and say that I am not for a Democrat or for the Republican party - I want to make this clear right now and say that I don't hate Bush because he's Republican."
Oh, well that's good to know. If it makes any difference, I don't hate you because you're a complete fucking idiot. I kinda pity you, though.
"I believe in the idea of America being as it was set out to be - this great experiment to better mankind," said the Blink 182 star.
Hmmm...my Original Thought Detector isn't getting any reading at all. Weird.
"This isn't about the red or blue, this is about this administration being involved in something that is really really scary and really really dark and deceptive."
"Mommy, I had a nightmare about Bushchimperialist and wet the bed! Can you change my sheets while I write a terrible song about it?"
While clearly not in the same league as Charlie Sheen's courageous high-profile public stance...
BWAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, getting extra publicity and slaps on the back from your fellow morons sure is courageous, Mr. Conspiracy Website Author.
DeLonge should be commended for using his notoriety as a platform for exploring the truth.
Hey, I think I should point out to the author that someone hacked his article and replaced "punched in the face" with "commended," and "paranoid schizophrenia" with "the truth."
Celebrities questioning 9/11 do not give the truth movement credibility, that has already been obtained through the research of people such as Professor Jones, Morgan Reynolds and Andreas von Bülow.
Argument from authority: A favorite logical fallacy of those with no actual knowledge of the bullshit they're spewing.
Celebrities give the truth movement a more vocal platform and a means of reaching a sector of society that might usually be off-limits via the normal reaches of the alternative truth community.
"Alternative truth community." I like it. It pretty much describes your wacky little pastime. At least they're no longer pretending to be "reality-based."
Allow me to join Jeff Goldstein and Ace in making fun of this magnificent dumbfuck:
Alright, let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that the Repubs are right, as are most Democrats and the media, when they insist that the election was legitimate. Fine.
Because, as we all know, Democrats and liberals are incapable of being wrong, so the only way Republicans could possibly win an election is by stealing it. Right.
We're going to give them one more chance to hold elections that are credible. We're going to throw ourselves into this next election, getting out as many voters as we can.
Because that worked so well in 2004...oh, right, Kerry actually won the election, but Bush stole it from him.
The turn-out will be huge, especially by the standard of off-year elections.
He has the gift! He can see the future!
</Master Shake>
Americans will come out to vote, in part, as a way to take a stand on behalf of free and fair elections.
"And as soon as we lose, we'll piss our pants and whine about how evil Republicans are!"
No early voting, and as little absentee voting as possible. The point here is to have a massive turn-out on Election Day.
"That way, it will be easier to complain that long lines somehow violated people's civil rights!"
We'll not only work to boost the turn-out, but we also plan to monitor this thing with an unprecedented thoroughness. We're going to watch the polls, and watch them count the votes.
Yeah, so how about those 2004 exit polls? How did that work out?
We're going to keep track of every wrong or merely screwy incident, every startling trend, every weird anomaly.
"Hey, you, did you just vote for Republicans?"
"Yes."
"He's part of the conspiracy! Get him!"
We're also going to pay close heed to all the relevant statistics: newspaper polls, independent exit polls (we cannot trust the NEP) and so on.
Democrats: When the voting doesn't go our way, we'll pretend that polls determine the winners of elections.
And so, when the Repubs win yet again...
That's the spirit!
...surprisingly maintaining their control of Congress...
Surprising to anyone who believes that the vast majority of voters are insane liberals who keep losing because their votes aren't counted, yes.
...notwithstanding their subterranean approval ratings...
Uh...aren't the Democrats' approval ratings even lower? And isn't Congress as a whole taking a beating in opinion polls at the moment? I'm glad to see that, once again, it comes down to the weird view that whatever liberals believe is the truth, and everything else is just a lie or a conspiracy.
...we will be prepared to note all the anomalies and improprieties -- and, at long last, to SAY NO.
Yeah, and so will we. When we vote to keep your loony asses out of office.
As this will have been the fourth election cycle ravaged by Bush/Cheney since 2000...
I wasn't aware that Bush and Cheney were running for Congress.
Americans must finally go Ukrainian, and just refuse to acknowledge BushCo's latest "win."
Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you refer to him as "*" and claim that he's "not my president?" I can't believe nobody has thought of this!
Where that may take us I can't say.
*cough*insaneasylum*cough*
But it is something that, it seems to me, we have to do, or else we don't deserve to call ourselves the citizens of a republic.
I thought you were "citizens of the world" or some shit. I'm glad you've decided to acknowledge that you are, in fact, subject to the rules and regulations of a representative republic. Now, about that electoral college thing...
UPDATE
Check out this pearl of wisdom from the comments. I'm not sure if it's satire or if it really was, as it appears, written by a retarded baboon, but either way, it's frickin' hilarious:
WHAT IS SO INCOMPREHENSIBLE ABOUT ALL OF THIS POWERGRAB BS IS THAT THE COUNTRY WILL BE SO F..KED UP AFTERWARD THAT IT WON'T BE WORTH SHIT HAVING ALL OF THE POWER IN IT. IT WILL HAVE BEEN LIKE THEY SPENT ALL OF THIER TIME AND ENERGY TO END UP STEALING A GARBAGE CAN FULL OF SHIT. THERE WON'T BE NO NFL NO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL NO NBA ONLY NASCAR. NOW WON'T THAT BE A LOT OF FUN?:) EVEN OPRAH WILL PROBALLY MOVE TO EUROPE OR CANADA. No Rock & Roll, no R&B, no blues just Country music and Broadway Shows. ALL OF THE FUN AND SOUL WILL BE GONE OUT OF AMERICA, So that a few clowns can have unlimited power over a bunch of crap. If that is not a flawed plan , I don't know what is. It is just like Martin Luther King said. "I think we are intergating into a burning house" MLK
Bwahaha! I was just reading some comments over at Right Wing News, and I came across a hilarious leftard dropping in this thread:
The right and the media in general are far, far more interested in Hillary as a candidate than anyone on the real, true left. Go check out Dailykos, and what the average person is saying about Hillary over there; ain't nothing good.Why the disdain? It's pretty simple. She's seen as a warbot-in-waiting, a Bush-heel bootlicker, a finger-in-the-wind hardcore politician, and generally reflecting none of the passionate stances of the left - the desire for no war and transparent government and un-torture and un-warrantless surveillance and compassion at all costs, to name a few.
Again: the obsession with the Clintons - and particularly Hillary - comes from the right and the mainstream media. The left is through with her. It would take so much for her to end up a viable candidate...it's just not possible. She's highly damaged goods. I would say that, honestly, she's only degrees more trusted or respected than Joe "Can I F*ck You, Mr. Bush?" Liebermann.
I repeat: Bwahaha!!!
Looks like Hillary's brilliant "I have to pretend I'm conservative so Republicans will vote for me" plan didn't exactly work out. Instead of convincing conservatives to vote for her, all she's done is apparently convince the crazier segment of the left (i.e. Daily Kos and the moron above) that she's not liberal enough.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
I would love to hear her internal monologue if she somehow ended up reading that comment:
"Oh, shit! I accidentally made a bunch of liberals believe that I'm no longer on their side! Well, at least the right wing majority will still...OH, SHIT! The right wingers were too smart to see through my shallow transformation! I'm dooooooomed!"
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
You know...I really would like to make this blog more like it was back in the old, pre-2004 election days. I spent a lot of time reading about issues, checking other blogs and commenting on them, engaging in discussions here, etc., and generally enjoyed it. If nothing else, it satisfied the constant need for an audience that has been a driving force behind my writing/film/music for as long as I can remember.
Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to get back into that zone. I keep reading through my archives (especially from May to November of 2004) and wondering how I was able to crank out so much pure substance and still have time for other stuff, despite the fact that I've been sitting at home for over a month now, and it seems like if I try to write one detailed post, the entire day is gone.
I'm really not exaggerating; I genuinely want this whole blogging thing to be the way it was then, when a post with five or six insightful comments wasn't unusual, and I actually had my writing linked and became semi-well-known in certain blog circles. However, I realize that it's my job to make that happen, and it seems like that part of me just isn't there anymore. Weird.
No, I'm not announcing a hiatus or trying to "quit" again, nor am I looking for fake sympathy. I'm just having a serious episode of dontyouwishyoucouldgobackitis, and unless the prescription is "more cowbell," I really don't know what to do about it.
Holy crap, a Napoleon Dynamite reference and a Saturday Night Live reference in the same sentence...I really am losing it.
On a semi-related note, I will try to work with the requested post topics, but when I came up with that idea, I was thinking more along the lines of "ask me what I think about (insert topic here)," not "give me a subject to write a boring historical essay about." I know you're probably just trying to be funny in a sadistic way, but I thought I'd make it clear what my intentions were. However, since I try to maintain a reputation of honesty, I will attempt to work with the topics that are there so far. But feel free to add more serious ones.
All right, I have to stop with the blog-emo bullshit before I start listening to Dashboard Confessional or something...
If you're looking for a really good story that will also freak you the fuck out, I highly recommend The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. For added effect, you can read it in the dark like I did for part of it.
And yes, the fact that I just finished it a couple hours ago and the fact that I'm still awake right now are somewhat related. My dreams have been weird enough already...
I've noticed a rather odd discrepancy in liberal rhetoric lately. On one hand, the left seems absolutely determined to create the impression that we've lost the War on Terror if we don't retain the moral high ground, which of course means that our troops can't employ tactics even vaguely resembling torture or humiliation lest they sink to the enemy's level. For example, take this statement by Mike Luckovich:
if we want to succeed in iraq, we have to remember that our most powerful weapon, greater than any bomb we could drop, is our moral authority. with the Bush administration ignoring the geneva conventions and deciding that in some instances, torture is acceptable, abu ghraib and gitmo resulted. we have dealt a severe blow to our efforts to win the hearts and minds of iraqis and of those in the greater mideast. this is in part why the insurgency has grown so strong and made it much harder to positively transform the middle east.
Incidentally, I'm still trying to figure out why the left has such a weird obsession with bombs. But that's an entirely separate topic.
The point is that this sentiment has been echoed by many on the left. Evidently, the only way to truly win a conflict is to use your "moral authority." I always thought that the point of a war was to, you know, kill the enemy, but that's probably one of those barbaric redneck beliefs that only ignorant repukes like myself can hold onto. Or something.
However, when trying to deal with purely political domestic conflicts, liberals will often insist that the only way to win is to match the hatred and anger that supposedly spew from the right on a daily basis, because anything less would make them come across as weak and cause them to lose more elections. A few good examples of this have appeared on the Democratic Underground lately, and thanks to DUmmie FUnnies, we can take a look at them:
Listen to me, Democrats! Never defend. Never explain. Attack, attack, attack! When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK. How hard can this be? Ann Coulter doesn’t waste her time defending herself against our accusations. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.
... it will force them to deal with issues if we beat them at their own game. I've been saying this for years. The dittoheads and others out there like them who can not think critically only think and believe what the person who screams the loudest says. I agree with the original poster, this is the way to fight back. People won't even remember most of what is alleged but they will remember how confident, strong and uncowardly the screamer appears...We need to do some name calling, screaming, scratching, and bitchin!
Making nice is for the party that refuses to win. America is too dumbed down and has the hots for hate. It's the hand we are playing, so lets play already!
Under normal condition, civil discourse would be appropriate... However, these are not "normal times". We have an opposition that aims to knock you down and grind their boot in your face. We must fight back accordingly.
Obviously, since these are from separate sources, I can't really use the discrepancy as direct evidence of hypocrisy. However, based on the fact that a number of liberals would probably agree with Luckovich and the DUmbasses, I have to ask why nobody else is pointing out the inconsistency.
Apparently, when dealing with terrorists whose only belief in life is "the infidels must die," it's necessary to retain the moral high ground in order to show innocent civilians that we're truly a force for good...but when it comes to simple disagreement over political issues, anything goes! Don't even bother making rational arguments, because the sheeple are too stupid for that! They only recognize strength, so attack, attack, attack, and never bother to explain why you're doing it!
This post rambled a bit, but still...does anyone else find it weird that they don't at least juxtapose these beliefs at some point and apply the "anything goes" rationale to people who are dedicated to the annihilation of non-Muslims?
I've tried this before with less than satisfactory results, but I kind of feel like writing, and none of the stories on other blogs are leaving me with a lot to say, so...
Request a topic (it doesn't necessarily have to be political or even current) in the comments, and I will write a post about it. It may not be very detailed, but I'll write something.
Go!
Since people actually participated in this last time, and there isn't anything going on at the moment that I particularly feel like writing about, let's play another game of "Name That iTune." In addition, the answers to the first Name That iTune (see link above) are in the extended entry.
Wow, that first paragraph and the post title are redundant...
Anyway, same rules as before: I'll post the first four lines of ten randomly selected songs from my playlist, and you try and identify the title of the song and the band that plays it. Correctly guessed lyrics will be underlined (only two were solved last time, and those were both from the same commenter, so friggin'...try harder this time, dang it!).
Now, on to the lyrics. Once again, iTunes is selecting these, not me, and I will not discriminate very much between easy and obscure songs, although I may skip over one if there's absolutely no chance anyone but me will know it:
1.
I walk alone, I am alone
I think alone, I'll die alone
Don't think I can make it on my own
I think I need someone to save me
2.
Forever's a lonely time
And the dogs aren't always
Aren't always on my mind
'Cause I didn't free them
3.
Voices call, they call out my name
They say I'm different, well I'm not the same
You say you want to be like me
Well boy let me tell you, you don't know what I've seen
4.
Wish I may
Wish I might
Have this I wish tonight
Are you satisfied?
5.
Affirmative may be justified take from one, give to another
The goal is to be unified take my hand, be my brother
The payment silenced the masses sanctified by oppression
Unity took a back seat sliding further into regression
6.
She fills my bed with gasoline
You think I wouldn't notice
Her mind's made up, her love is gone
I think someone's trying to show us a sign
7.
There’s another world inside of me that you may never see
There are secrets in this life that I can’t hide
Somewhere in this darkness, there’s a light that I can’t find
Maybe it's too far away, or maybe I’m just blind
8.
Let the fun and games begin
She is spayed and broken in
Skin is cold and white
Such a lovely, lonely night
9.
This feeling's back today
It's so deceiving like it's never leaving
Same as yesterday
As the pressure's mounting, I continue counting
10.
Look at this photograph
Every time I do it makes me laugh
How did our eyes get so red?
And what the hell is on Joey’s head?
Minor hint: Four of these are from debut albums. I suppose I'll post the answers next Friday or something.
Now, if you continue to the extended entry, you can see the answers to the first edition of Name That iTune. Because I know you've all been dying to know what you...didn't know...yeah. Anyway...
1. "Bitch" by Sevendust (correctly guessed by Ryan, a.k.a. The Best Guitarist In Suspended Agitation)
2. "Illusion" by Creed (also guessed correctly by Ryan. Is it any wonder we started a band?)
3. "Freak of the World" by Puddle of Mudd
4. "Weathered" by Creed
5. "Fight For All The Wrong Reasons" by Nickelback
6. "Crash" by 12 Stones
7. "Arlington Avenue" by Gary Frenay (star of Against the Wind, the greatest student documentary of all time. I have this song because he let me borrow his CDs for research purposes while we were shooting.)
8. "Lounge Act" by Nirvana
9. "Can You Keep A Secret (My Name Is Phil)" by Rick Still
10. "Hey, Johnny Park!" by Foo Fighters
i think somethings wrong with my fetus
I'm more worried about your punctuation.
Yep, I posted another recording on SoundClick. I call it "Instant Metal." Basically, I improvised a bunch of Sevendust-style riff metal and added drums when I was done. It gets a little weird, but there's some good stuff in there. Feel free to check that out.
Holy. Freakin'. Crap. This PODxt thingy is friggin' awesome.
Seriously, I thought it sounded good already, but that was before I started experimenting with layered guitar tracks.
I repeat: Holy. Freakin'. Crap.
I messed around a bit with the POD and GarageBand, and I think I managed to perfect a recording strategy that compensates for the crappiness of my guitar. It still sounds rather amateurish, but compared to everything I've posted so far, this is practically professional quality.
Unfortunately, my uploads still aren't available, so I can't post a full-quality mp3. However, this particular song isn't a cover, so I was able to put it elsewhere.
Anyway, remember the song called Lost and Found that I posted back in March? I spent a couple hours re-recording it from the ground up with the POD. Every track is brand new, and it sounds about 1000 times better than the original (again, unfortunately, you can't listen to both for comparison at the moment unless you downloaded the first one for some reason).
It took a while to put this together. It uses four individual rhythm guitar tracks (meaning I actually played it four times just for these), one clean guitar track, one solo guitar track, one bass guitar track, and four tracks of drum loops.
Like I said, it took a while.
The distorted rhythm tracks are what I'm really psyched about here. Two of them use the bridge pickup, and two use the half-bridge, half-middle pickup setting for more chunkiness. I also panned two to the left and two to the right, so the stereo effect is better than ever. All four use a tone I created specifically for this song on the POD. Basically, I took the "Line 6 Spinal Puppet" amp model and tweaked it until it sounded the way I needed it to. I won't go into detail about the other stuff, but I'm really impressed at the kind of distortion I'm getting out of my terrible guitar.
Anyway, if you want to hear it, go here and look for it at the top of the page. You have to be a member to download the mp3, but you can click on "lo-fi" or "hi-fi" (I'd recommend hi-fi, because the other one sounds like crap and isn't in stereo) and it will play in your browser. Feel free to review it in the comments or whatever.
I'll post the full quality version here as soon as my file manager is working again.
It turns out that I have absolutely nothing to write about at the moment, and until my uploads are available, I can't post any recordings, so...if anyone is still there, feel free to start a discussion or something. This would be a good time for lurkers to make themselves known and join in the fun.
On another note, I may be starting another Bob and Joe adventure, but I can't confirm anything at this time. More info as events progress...
So, like I said in the last post, I now own a Line 6 PODxt, which is a guitar amp modeler. I was tired of using the screechy distortion in GarageBand, so I decided to upgrade my equipment.
I've been testing it out for...the past five hours, I think...and although my crappy guitar once again presents some serious limitations to what I can do, this thing can make some really cool sounds.
I threw together three quick samples to demonstrate the POD's capabilities, although thanks to the bastards who screwed up the MuNu servers, I can't upload anything larger than 1 MB, so these are all short and rather low quality (128-160 kbps), but it's the best I can do right now.
Anyway, I made all of these using the USB connection from the POD to GarageBand, and although I did a bit of post-recording EQ, etc., I didn't use any distortion from the computer. Also, each sample consists of one track copied and pasted three times for a fuller sound (two of the three are panned hard left and right). Check these out:
Sample #1 is a chunk of my "Spone Zone" riffs that I played using the "X Tone" preset channel, which is based on the "Line 6 Chemical X" amp model:
Sample #2 is an improvised drop-D chugfest using the "Line 6 Modern Hi-Gain" amp model:
Sample #3, my personal favorite, is an improvised thrashtravaganza made with the "Line 6 Spinal Puppet" amp model:
As soon as I can upload large, full quality MP3s again, I'll have something better.
My PODxt just got here, so I doubt that I'll be posting anything not related to that for the next couple days, but first, I want to try something I saw on Blather Review that looked kinda fun.
Basically, I'm going to post the first four lines of ten randomly selected (by using the shuffle button and pressing the "next song" thingy) songs from my iTunes library playlist, and it's up to you to name the songs they come from (without Googling, if possible).
I have a mix of extremely mainstream and extremely obscure stuff among the 1,138 tracks in my library (including my own band's demos), so some of these may be very difficult.
As I type this, I have not actually selected any songs, so let's do that now. I may select more than ten and then narrow it down if I got one that doesn't work, but you'll only see the finalists:
1.
I can't imagine to be like you
The pain and the suffering you put me through
I can't imagine to be like you
The pain and the suffering you put me through
2.
The sun rises to another day
My constitution keeps changing 'til it slips away
So I lie awake and stare
My mind thinking, just wandering, is anybody there?
3.
Don't want the sun to shine upon my face
And I see your eyes and their glazy haze
Your lips don't move but I hear what you're saying
I look outside through the razor blades
4.
I lie awake on a long, dark night
I can't seem to tame my mind
Slings and arrows are killing me inside
Maybe I can't accept the life that's mine
5.
Well I wanted you
I wanted no one else
I thought it through
I got you to myself
6.
As I lie tossing in my bed
Lost in my fears remembering what you said
And I try to hide the truth within
The mask of myself shows its face again
7. (NOTE/HINT: Unless you're intimately familiar with the music scene in Syracuse, NY, you probably will not know this one):
When we first met so long ago
I never dreamed we'd last
But as the years rolled past
We'd go on and on
8.
Truth covered in security
I can't let you smother me
I'd like to but it wouldn't work
Trading off and taking turns
9. (Holy crap, I can't believe it got this one. Practically a freebie for long-time readers!):
Hello, my name is Phil
And I'm not so sure I know what's real
All alone upon the mountainside
I close my eyes and go for a ride
10.
Come and I'll take you under this beautiful bruise's colors
Everything fades in time, it's true.
Wish that I had another stab at the undercover
Was it a change in mind for you?
Wow, that got some good stuff (although 2, 4, and 6 are really thematically similar...). All right, if anyone wants to play, just put your guesses in the comments, and I'll underline anything that's guessed correctly. Go!
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Killed in Bombing Raid
...
WOOHOO!!! About time that fuckbastard got what was coming to him.
UPDATE
Is anyone else finding it difficult to look at phrases like "Zarqawi dead," etc. without laughing uncontrollably?
Not because it's absurd or anything, but because it's so. freakin'. AWESOME.
Two years ago (wow, it's been a while), I said this:
If we ever catch the f**king murderous b@stards who killed Nick Berg, we should execute them with a rusty guillotine.
But...I think two large bombs did the job well enough.
Would it be tasteless to do a little creative editing on the "Zarqawi holding up Nick Berg's head" photo so it's Zarqawi's head being displayed? I think maybe it would be...but I might do it anyway.
UPDATE THE SECOND
Much less graphic photo than the one mentioned above, but I'll put it in the extended entry anyway:
Okay, I'm trying to update the random quotes, but Movable Type and Firefox are being bastards and deleting bits of my main index template without my knowledge, so if the blog looks weird at random intervals (like right now), that's why.
UPDATE
So apparently, there's only limited space in the main index for text to be entered, and I've reached the limit with all the new stuff, which is why the blogroll is getting cut off. I guess there won't be any more random quotes until I figure out a way around this.
Oh, well. No huge loss. Now I just have to remember, in alphabetical order, all the blogs I used to link to before this crap happened.
Shit.
I have another guitar cover ready to go, but apparently the server weirdness somehow made my uploaded files unavailable, so I have no idea when it'll be posted.
Just thought I'd mention this.
Man, this is not a good week for computer-related issues. First of all, I managed to kill my eMac's hard drive yesterday after playing Falcon 4.0 for a few hours (luckily, everything important is on my PowerBook, so it's basically my full-time computer now), then my Internet connection went down for a while, and now MuNu apparently suffered a DOS attack, resulting in me (and probably everyone else) receiving a "403 Forbidden" error when trying to access SIT.
Crap.
However, as horrible as the timing on this is, I finally (finally!) found something interesting to write about, and although the weirdness has resulted in this post being delayed by a few hours, I'm not missing an opportunity to put up some meaningful content.
The fact that I'm basically nocturnal helps out in this situation. You may look at the time on this post and think "early morning on Saturday," but for me, it's still early evening on Friday. Yay, summer.
So, anyway...blogging!
Thanks to this post on Protein Wisdom, I checked out this story dealing with the oh-so-exciting issue of racial sensitivity. Let's take a look:
Racial slur read by professor upsets U of I law studentsProfessor says racial term fit in a negotiations class
Iowa City, Ia. - A professor's use of readings containing racial slurs has alarmed students and renewed discussions about diversity at the University of Iowa law school.
Hmm. I'm having flashbacks to the HillTV situation already. As you're about to see, there's a very good reason for that.
"This incident was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back," said Steven Nelson, 27, a second-year U of I law student from New Orleans. "We're not going to stand for living in an environment that is hostile to us."
If simply hearing a racial slur, regardless of context, fits your definition of "hostile," I struggle to think how you managed to survive for 27 years without having a complete nervous breakdown and spending the rest of your days cowering in the corner babbling about how everyone is out to get you.
...Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Anyway...
The university's Black Law Students Association...
Isn't it great that we've finally managed to eliminate racial segregation from our society?
Oh, wait...
...a group of 27 students, said in a letter to law faculty, U of I administration and the Iowa Board of Regents executive director that a March 29 incident was "indicative of a much larger problem at the College of Law."
Predictable as hell. This is the same reaction that takes place every time we have a "bias-related incident" at Syracuse:
"Somebody did something offensive! Therefore, because one person wasn't thinking straight, it's clear that the entire school is full of intolerant bigots who need to be properly educated in the ways of never doing anything that would make anyone uncomfortable ever! Look! Look around! You're all a bunch of fucking bigots and you don't even know it! LOOK!!!"
Sorry, got a little carried away there. Now, let's take a closer look at the event that led to all this trouble:
The incident that triggered the larger discussion was professor Gerald Wetlaufer reading aloud two passages that contained racial epithets in his negotiations class, according to law school Dean Carolyn Jones.
Wow. How utterly horrible. A professor dared to read something written by someone else, and that writing happened to contain offensive words. I understand everything now. In fact, I feel absolutely sickened that anyone could be so heartless and inconsiderate. I can't imagine what those poor, innocent students (some of whom are apparently pushing 30) must have gone through.
Really. I am shocked and appalled beyond belief. Let's move on:
The readings, one from Robert Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of former President Lyndon Johnson and another a 1964 speech by a black sharecropper named Fannie Lou Hamer, were in context with the course, Jones said, but students may not have been sufficiently prepared to hear the racial slurs.
I'm going to repeat the last part of that excerpt for emphasis:
...students may not have been sufficiently prepared to hear the racial slurs.
Let's think about this. What the crap does that even mean? How do you prepare someone to hear racial slurs? You'd think that if they're able to recognize the words in question as racial slurs in the first place, it means they're sufficiently prepared to hear them again. Furthermore, considering the fact that we're talking about adult law students here, don't you think it's a bit insulting to their intelligence to even consider this?
"Okay, boys and girls, you've all been a very good class lately, and I promise to give you an extra half hour of naptime this Friday, but in tomorrow's lecture, I may have to say some naughty, naughty words, and I wanted to make sure nobody will go home crying, so I have to ask that you have your parents sign these permission slips. Now, if you'll just hand in your fingerpaintings, I'll dismiss you."
I'm having way too much fun with this. It's been a long time since I wrote a good sarcastic rant. Let's continue:
Wetlaufer apologized to students for not adequately warning them about the readings but said he believes they were relevant to the course, which focuses on the power of language.
Can you say "unintended consequences," children?
I still can't get over the fact that the students believe they should've been "warned" about this. The idea of law students being so thin-skinned that they can't even handle listening to a quoted racial epithet is making me hope I never have to be within 1000 yards of a courthouse.
"These were not words I used to oppress anyone in the class or promote anyone else's agenda," he said. "This word appears 49 times in 'To Kill a Mockingbird.' I don't think I have crossed some line here."
The fact that he even had to explain this in an "academic" environment demonstrates the infantilization of the modern American educational system. I'm starting to think that shit like this is why people in certain countries view Americans as dumb.
...Tori Bobryk, a third-year law student who is white, walked out of the class because she was offended by Wetlaufer reading the slur without warning, she said.
I'm not sure which would be more painful at this point: Continuing to think about how anyone could be so sheltered that they would resort to this, or banging my head on my desk until I pass out. I guess I should at least finish the post...
"I wish there had been a preface or a disclaimer or a discussion afterward," she said.
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
...Oh, I'm still conscious. All right, I'll think about it, damn you.
I really don't understand how people can actually believe this crap about needing disclaimers and discussions, etc. before dealing with any sensitive topic. It almost seems more likely that they're just doing this to get attention...but when I recall some of the ridiculous things I've seen people do and say, I realize that it is, in fact, possible for human beings to be this mind-bendingly brainwashed and idiotic. Moving on...
Nelson, the Black Law Students Association president, said there have been other instances in which students or professors have made insensitive comments.In another case, a student brought up the idea of reinstating slavery, and the professor, whom Nelson would not name, did not contradict the notion, he said.
I highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly doubt that this event happened in the way it's described here. My guess is that someone brought up a hypothetical situation in which slavery was never abolished, and certain students were made uncomfortable by the act of thinking about it. However, since the article gives no more information, I'll go ahead and strike that opinion from the record, as you law school types would say.
(Insert oversensitive asshole here: "'You law school types?' Is that some kind of racial slur? How dare you!")
Jones said the law school has 16 percent minority enrollment — more than other U of I colleges — and is working to recruit more students and faculty of color.
Fight the War on Homogeneity!!!
"I want you...as long as you're a minority!"
"It's really important for our students to learn about diversity and work with people of all different backgrounds. That's where their future is," Jones said.
And what better way to prepare them for the real world than shielding them from unpleasant thoughts? Brilliant!
A new law school diversity committee will work this summer to develop racially sensitive programming, she said.
Why do I get a chill when I see the word "programming" in there?
"You will be assimilated...by accepting diversity!"
Seriously, I shouldn't be having this much fun with an issue that pisses me off this much. I should do this blogging thingawhatsit more often...
[More boring statistics about minority enrollment left out; See the original article if you're interested for some reason]
"Throughout this academic year, we've been thinking about ways to make the law school more welcoming," Jones said.Nelson would like the law school to draft a policy requiring faculty to put racially related topics in context.
It seems to me that the professor in question did just that and STILL GOT CRAPPED ON, YOU IDIOTS.
"It's not that we don't want these issues talked about...
Could've fooled me.
...it's just we want them to be brought up in a sensitive manner," he said.
Well, thanks for being so specific about what "sensitive" means, moron. Apparently, making it clear that you're reading someone else's words and not endorsing the offensive usage of the words in question isn't good enough for you.
That's the end of the article, but I want to get into these issues just a bit more to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing really is.
First and foremost, I still can't quite understand how fucking law students aren't prepared for this kind of thing. Imagine tuning in to CourtTV and seeing this:
LAWYER: Could you describe what you saw the defendant doing?
WITNESS: Well, he shot the guy twice, then he just...started stabbing him in the chest while he was on the ground begging for his life. I...I can't really talk about it anymore.
LAWYER: Did the defendant say anything to the victim?
WITNESS: I...I think he called him a..."dumb nigger," and-
LAWYER: How dare you use that word, you monster! You're a disgrace to society, and you deserve to be locked up forever!
DEFENDANT: You can't prove that I-
LAWYER: I wasn't talking to you!
...I think I got carried away again. Anyway, this kind of thing irritates the crap out of me, if you couldn't tell. People are afraid of words.
Words.
Not the context in which they're used, or the people who are using them, but the words themselves. As a result, they consider it an assault on their well-being to even hear these words.
I consider myself something of a writer, so I understand the power of language (which was apparently the subject of the lecture(s) in question), but when it gets to the point where the words themselves become the enemy, we've gone too far.
Allow me to share a few personal anecdotes to illustrate the hypersensitivity of these perpetual victims.
First of all, during my freshman year of college, I had an ethics professor (with whom I was involved in an extended debate about abortion) who used racial slurs quite often to illustrate points in class. This professor happened to be black, but if the words themselves are the problem, that shouldn't make a difference. What matters is that nobody got up and walked out of the room when he used said slurs. In fact, at one point in a lecture, he actually asked a student to "call [him] a nigger" in order to demonstrate the uselessness of epithets in an argument. The resulting dialogue went something like this:
STUDENT: Nigger!
PROFESSOR: Cracker!
STUDENT: Nigger!
PROFESSOR: Cracker!
STUDENT: Nigger!
PROFESSOR: Cracker!
STUDENT: Nigger!
PROFESSOR: Cracker!
A bit more "offensive" than the stuff in the article, even in context, right? But nobody seemed to get bent out of shape about it, and we all understood why the words in question were being used. Nobody complained that there should've been warnings or discussion. We used our brains and figured out why these words were said, and then we moved on.
Keep in mind that this was an undergraduate philosophy class, not fucking law school, so if we were all mature enough to handle this, surely a 27 year-old should be able to handle a quote that contains offensive language.
In addition, this is yet another example of the emotionalism that so dominates our society.
"It's all about how I feel! The mean professor's words made me uncomfortable! He's creating a hostile environment! Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me!!!"
Grow. The. Fuck. Up.
You want to talk about a "hostile environment?" Try being a conservative studying communications at a liberal school and see how things go. You'll have a great time watching people in a poli-sci class come to a consensus that the broadcast media is overwhelmingly conservative, listening to your history professor imply that he would like to see the president assassinated, hearing your sociology professor suggest that only white people can be racist, having pro-Bush signs ripped off your dorm door and vandalized repeatedly, taking part in a political discussion in which it's you against 19 liberal students and a liberal professor, and overhearing a discussion in which one participant asks "have you ever met a conservative movie-maker?" (implying that they don't exist) while trying to resist the urge to say "you have now." And that's just scratching the surface!
But you know what? I don't go to the administration and complain that my feelings are being hurt and that I should be warned before I have to listen to anything I don't like. Instead, I realize that people don't agree with me, I consider their views, I speak when necessary and remain silent when necessary, and I occasionally vent on my blog, but I generally try to act like an adult, because that's what I am, and that's what you are, so for the love of crap, STOP WHINING.
Finally, let's all celebrate our great nation with a quote from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and Never Hearing Offensive Words.
You know...something about that doesn't look right...
