/|\

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”


Friday, September 2, 2005

Random Ten Songs

In the act of aping my betters, I present to you my first Friday Random Ten:

1. All Along the Watchtower - Bob Dylan
"There must be some kinda way out of here". Loses a point for not being the Hendrix version (which even Dylan says is better). 9/10

2. Five Years - David Bowie
"News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying
Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying"
OK. Wasn't expecting that after the past week. Not the best song on the album, but actually a good openning for a concept album. 8/10

3. "What Deaner Was Talking About" - Ween
It's actually a really listenable, good pop song. Nonsense, vaguely twee, but still pretty good. 7/10

4. "Watch That Man" - David Bowie
Two Bowies? Well, at least it's a rockin song. When glam was actually good. 8/10

5. "Take This Longing" - Leonard Cohen
Admittedly an aquired taste. But since I like him, it gets a 9/10

6. "I Wanna Be Free" - The Monkees
Incredibly stupid lyrics. Music like something ripped off of Revolver--which actually subtracts one point for unoriginality. 3/10

7. "Night Flight" - Led Zepplin
Nothin special. 4/10

9. "Snowflake Music" - Mark Mothersbough
Rushmore soundtrack. Does this count? It's only :30 long. It's good, though. 7/10

10. "The Wind" - Cat Stevens
Again, Rushmore. But it's the one song on there I don't really like or care about. Damn you, Yusuf Islam. 4/10

'Cause #9 was so short, I'm going to have an 11th.

11. "Finished With Lies" - They Might Be Giants
Well, it's not the best TMBG song. It's not even the best song on Mink Car. Sentimentality is fighting with me here.... 6/10

Damn. 6.5/10. Not too good. Damn you, Monkees and Cat Stevens! (When I think of all the good stuff on this thing...)

UPDATE
Two songs later, what do I get? "Devil's Haircut." Figures.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 4:00 PM

It's the Oil, Stupid.

The fact that gas is $3.25 in my neighborhood isn't bad enough. Then I hear about this:

At least 20 oil rigs and platforms are missing in the Gulf of Mexico and a ruptured gas pipeline is on fire after Hurricane Katrina tore through the region, a US Coast Guard official said.

"We have confirmed at least 20 rigs or platforms missing, either sunk or adrift, and one confirmed fire where a rig was," Petty Officer Robert Reed of the Louisiana Coast Guard told AFP.

[snip]

According to the latest tally Wednesday from the federal Minerals Management Service, a total of 561 platforms and rigs have been evacuated in the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for a quarter of US oil production.

Over 91 percent of normal daily crude oil production in the Gulf -- 1.5 million barrels -- is now shut down, and more than 83 percent of natural gas production, the MMS said.

We're in trouble.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 2:00 PM

Thursday, September 1, 2005

Mere Anarchy

Which, sadly is what New Orleans has descended into. Not that I'm surprised--damn city is destroyed, people are without food, water, homes or employment, and you expect them to act like normal, rational, happy human beings? Right.

Anarchy? Or Another Annus Mirabilis?

Are we playing Chicken Little? Are things really going to be as bad as some are prophecying? I heard a couple of different economists on NPR talking about how this could make the whole economy tumble back into recession.

Part of me can't help but be optimistic. Chicago burned, but was rebuilt. San Francisco was destroyed in an earthquake, but is now one of the most beautiful cities on the world. London was more beautiful, thanks to Christopher Wren, after the great fire of 1666. What of New Orleans? Part of me really does believe that NOLA will be back. And there's a very good reason for them to rebuild: it's the largest port in the US. The Mississippi, carrying commerce from as far away as Minnesota, ends in New Orleans. All our exported grain goes out; most of our imported oil goes in. We need this city. It's a major economic hub of the Southeast (the other biggie I guess is Atlanta).

It will be a long time before things are back as they were. I don't even know if it will be as it were, and part of me hopes it isn't. Not just in terms of rebuilding the levees, but if there's a way to raise the city... But I'm no engineer. Leave that to the smart people.

But there is hope.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 2:00 PM

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Keep Making Me Roll My Eyes
And They're Gonna Stay That Way

So, via Salon, via Pandagon, it looks like the FCC wants to regulate basic cable. Commissioner Kevin J. Martin--Chimpy's appointment--wants to expand the powers of the FCC to regulate the market.

That's essentially what it comes down to.

I don't feel like repeating myself, but here's what I said earlier about why that's a bad idea:

The FCC originally existed to regulate what was seen as a limited, naturally recurring resource--namely, the airwaves. They are limited in the EM spectrum, and yes, someone has to make sure radio and television stations don't broadcast over each other. As for regulating what is on television, while deep down I don't agree, I understand it, as the airwaves were considered a public trust. Of course, that also goes back to time when television (and radio) had to allot a certain amount of time a week to public issues (usually ending up on a Sunday morning).

Times have changed. Public programming is rare. And frankly, folks have overwhelmingly turned to cable, a system where you now have to pay for television programs. Of course, these programs are also making money by selling ad time, as well as getting you to pay to see it--something which doesn't happen with broadcast television.

My point is that people elect to have cable. It isn't a limited resource (not in the same sense that the naturally-occuring broadcasting waves are limited), and it isn't considered a public trust. It's ruled by the market. For that reason, the FCC hasn't had jurisdiction over cable--it's not public.

What I'm getting at is this--cable stations regulate to some extent, based on what they think their viewers will pay to see. Sometimes a station will push the envelope, like South Park's use of "shit" some 300 times in one episode, with the intent of proving against using shock-value words. Or even more, think of the pay channels, HBO and Showtime, where nudity, drug use, homosexuality, and expletives are used freely. They can do this, because people are paying to see it. If you don't want to see it, you don't pay to see it.

Where does it stop? Does the government then decide what's inappropriate on the internet? In magazines and books? Any type of private-sector communication?

And this isn't Stalinist?

|

posted by Tlachtga, 2:00 PM

Sunday, August 28, 2005

When the levee breaks...

I have nothing special to add, except that I hope everything goes OK down in Louisiana. I can't imagine that it will, though. I've never been to New Orleans; it's someplace I've always wanted to go, but I've always been too short on cash.

Relief donations (which will be needed) can go here.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 8:00 PM