...would you vote for him? Put me down in the yes column.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Death Magnetic
Metallica's new album "Death Magnetic" is, in my humble opinion, their best work since 1991's the Black album. Metallica is my third favorite band EVER (1. Black Sabbath; 2. Pantera), and so for me, this is kind of a big deal. Their late '90s albums Load and ReLoad were case-studies in mediocrity. Their 2003 outing "St. Anger" was just crap. So they've made a good album, their first in 17 years. Excellent. So why am I pissed off?
BECAUSE THE ALBUM WAS NEARLY RUINED IN THE MIXING STAGE. The problem is called "compression": it clips the high and low ends of the signal to create the illusion of volume, thereby distorting the original audio recording and diminishing its crispness and clarity. This is not the "good" kind of distortion that musicians intentionally aim for; it's the bad kind that deprives the music of its complexity and character. As it happens, two versions of Death Magnetic were released: the official album and the Guitar Hero 3 version which owners of the game were able to download. Because the GH3 was not unnecessarily FUCKED WITH, it sounds a lot better. To wit, here is the album version of "The Judas Kiss":
And here is the GH3 version:
And just in case you think I am making all this up:
If the music biz wants to use compression techniques to make shit bands like Fall Out Boy sound poppier, so be it. But stay the fuck away from my bands. That is why I signed this petition calling for Death Magnetic to be re-released in the format in which it deserves to be heard.
John McCain is a Low Ranking Monkey
This is funny. But does that make Obama a "high ranking monkey"? What an unfortunate (though I am sure unintended) implicature.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Still waiting
Brief update: should have internet access Wednesday evening.
In the meantime, Jason, thanks for holding down the fort. I've appreciated reading your posts, and I'll respond as soon as I'm able.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Anonymous v. Palin
Anonymous, the internet-based group that has recently taken on Scientology, has stepped up its vigilantism by hacking Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, assumedly to find E-mails containing public office business. Screen shots of the hack were posted on Gawker and Wikileaks (which is the slowest site on the internet right now). The Wikileak angle makes the act look like whistleblowing.
Now, there has been growing talk about whether/how much public business Palin conducted through her personal e-mail. This is a very serious and potentially illegal activity because records of business communication are public records and become very tricky to obtain (legally and technically) from a private account. Yes, Palin is accused of a very serious ethical and legal violation in doing this. However, hacking her E-mail is also a very serious crime because of who she is (hence the involvement of the Secret Service and FBI). What does this indicate about Anonymous' self-conception and direction? Should we be particularly afraid? Should we be happy?
Recent Anonymous activity has focused (very valiantly in my opinion) on protesting Scientology for breaking up families, kidnapping, violating non-profit status through profit-making schemes, and other worse and lesser crimes. Their actions have included protests in front of Scientology buildings, hacking Scientology websites, and publicizing their claims. Nothing at the level of Palin or publishing personal information (recently, as far as I know). They do have a more sordid past, but there's little I can find factually about those times. (Side Note: the Palin incident with the earlier activities may put Anonymous in boiling water.) Now, they've stepped up to one of the most visible political figures in the country with a direct confrontation that involves unabashed criminality. That's a lot of exposure wrapped up in a very starkly defined situation.
The basics driving Anonymous thus far has been pretty clear and well-founded - revealing and stymying the blatantly illegal/abusive use of power. But, some people have questioned their sincerity, veracity, and self-control and a number of boards are lighting up around these notions. I'm not one of those people, I think their motives and information are clear. However, I am concerned about the level of infiltration this time. Following the same principles, they have now launched an attack on a public figure using illegal activity. Yeah, hacking a website and altering its content crosses legal lines, but publicizing stolen personal information is a much clearer crime. Should I be personally afraid? No, I'm not abusing power. I could suffer collateral damage if Anonymous used more viral methods (though they seem, so far conscientious of limiting their troublesomeness to the tyrant). So, I and I think others should be worried about expanding methods and outspokeness. But at the same time, their principles leave us alone and provide us a strong arm against corruption. We have to take Vigilante Ethics much more seriously.
What do I predict? There may be much more information gathered from the hacking which has yet to be released. All of the documentation I've found right now was meant to validate that the account was Palin's (contact list, pictures, confirmed e-mails). The purpose of the breach was probably to find public business and, ideally, dirty business. The prevailing sentiment seems to be that Palin did use her private account for public business, so there is reason to expect that there was some solid evidence gathered. We may see that soon. If that comes out, Anonymous will come under an incredible amount of pressure and it will continue the polarizaiton in the U.S. since Palin was introduced. If there is a real case to be made, the truth may overshadow the hacking. If the evidence is weak, revealing it will feed the prevailing discourse that liberals are out to get Palin.
Keep your eyes and ears open for a bigger scandal
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Is Affirmative Action Unneccesary?
NOW, a show on PBS, had a feature on a movement to end affirmative action which has initiatives on the ballots in three states and was successful 10 years ago in California. The video itself is pretty thorough in the issues it covers and makes for a pretty good introduction to some of the contemporary dimensions of the issue. I want to address some of the objections that have been raised to affirmative action because some i believe are foolhardy and others offer some insights into deeper issues that hopefully someone somewhere will find illuminating.
Affirmative Action is Racial Discrimination: Yes, affirmative action does institute polices which distribute resources based on race. It is institutionalized discrimination. Yes, the Civil Rights Act illegalizes discrimination. Yes this appears to be a contradiction. But, let me offer an analogy. Someone steals your wallet. It is against the law to take money from someone without their consent. The police catch the guy and the courts force him to pay damages. You are receiving money from someone without their consent, but we all know there's no legal contradiction because your getting money from the thief is recompensation for a previous legal wrongdoing. Slavery, Jim Crow, and the systematic neglect and exploitation of the black community have set an extremely damaging hindrance on the opportunaties of the black community. When the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, black people did not all of a sudden have the same opportunities. They did not become rich, accepted in any mainstream American culture, get the same treatment by police, or have their schools funded at levels equal to white schools. The civil rights did not offer just compensation. If you don't believe African Americans deserve any recompensation, you either don't have a basic notion of resiprocity or are seriously mistaken about what such laws and social practices do to people. So yes, just as the thief can have money taken from him for stealing, so can race become a factor of discrimination for repaying the debts of discrimination. Should Affirmative Action be a part of social recompensation? That's debatable. However, it is a weak argument to say it should be thrown off the table (at least right now and I'll get to that later) because it's racial discrimination and we illegalized racial discrimination.
Affirmative Action is "Reverse Racism:" I hear this a lot: isn't racism priviliging/exalting or disadvantaging/degrading someone because of race and doesn't affirmative action privilege black people with jobs over whites? Yes. However, privileging an already racially disadvantaged group is not racism, but a mitigation of racism. In a situation where the chances of a black male with standard application material getting a job are the same as a white ex-convict (I'm tired and thus a bit lazy in finding the studies; they interviewed the researchers on CNN's Black in America), we can safely say that discrimination is already in play.
A Black President signifies the end of the need for Affirmative Action?: I never took this too seriously until it was the first segment in the PBS video. I've laughed it off becuase it's the ultimate "Black Friend" argument. "There's a black guy in the White House, this country's totally cool with black people. Oh, that Fiddy Cent." I'm not saying the lack of African Americans in positions of power is because of racism in hiring practices. I don't have to to Jujitsu this idea over the illegitimacy of Tokenization.
Affirmative Action Discriminates against Poor White People: This argument offers a lot of insight into contemporary class politics and the redirection of class struggle. A lot of this is anectdotal stories boiling down to a struggling/poor/small white business/student trying to land a contract/get into school/get a job and finding that they lost it to Affirmative Action or can only find scholarships for minorities (there's a similar complaint with hispanics). Yes, white people lose spots to blacks because of Affirmative Action and don't have many anti-disadvantage programs. Yes, poor/struggling whites face many of the same barriers as African Americans. Welcome to the F'n United States. Anyone who believes there is universal equal opportunity was not born poor. It's closer to true to say that everyone has an increadibly large range of possibilities. I have the opportunity to be an Astronaut and so does a Black kid from Washington Park. We do not however have the same opportunity as the son of a Air Force General who grew up around jets and has been given every chance to learn how to fly, learn the military ropes, and was essentially born into social connections that can move him up. I did not have the same opportunity to go to Harvard as a graduate from Phillips Academy. And yes, poor, struggling white folks should be feeling miffed about not having those same resources or resources that help you get there. But do not look at African Americans and say "you're taking away my opportunity." You look at the wealthy and say "how can you pretend I have equal opportunity?" You look to government and you say, "where's the help to overcome the disadvantages of being raised poor?" Why aren't there poor scholarships? Why aren't there hiring quotas for the poor? At least in Affirmative Action there is the recognition that poverty is a disadvantage and something is being done. There absolutely should be more done to mitigate those disadvantages, but taking away Affirmative Action is not going to help any poor. Ending hiring quotas will do absolutely nothing to help overcome the disadvantages of a destitute primary and secondary education, of not having parents around because they're working their second job, of not being able to go to afterschool activities because you don't have transportation. The problem of poverty is not black and white. It's rich and poor.
I'm not saying Affirmative Action is the solution or a primary solution, but I am saying that the objections often raised to it are woefully ahistorical, unrealistic, or misdirections away from the real problems
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
