The End of Days.

So, it's no news that Palin belongs to an apocalyptic church, Alaska's going to be a last refuge for people during the end of days and whatnot, and that's going to happen in our lifetime so why worry about global warming, or anything else for that matter. Ok. She's a nutjob.

But.

But it's been brought to my attention the end of days, at least for our nation may be closer than we thing. Article was published in the Washington Times today about constitutional scholars speculating on an electoral college doomsday, a tie at 269-269.

In a system even more unrepresentative than the electoral college, the president would be decided by the House (Democratically domintated, thankfully) each state only getting one vote , and the VP selected by the senate.

A deadlocked senate, if Li'l Joe sides with his friends in selecting Palin, and the current VP, Cheney breaks the tie, we immediately get Palin for VP.

So that's an Obama-Palin presidency. There have been a few speculations that the house might be dragged into a bitter fight, with Democrats serving in states that voted for McCain having crises of conscience (though I don't know how).

With the debate drawn out, we could have Palin serving as our acting president with McCain still breathing somewhere out in Arizona.

With the country so bitterly divided in this mess, it's only a matter of time before this ignites into something worse, and we watch our nation sink into oblivion.

If given a choice, I'd prefer Hawaii as my refuge state.

The choices we make and prices we must pay.

The joke gets old 30 seconds into the clip, but don't let that stop you.



I'm waiting to hear on a few jobs, including my old position at Davis High School. Working with a band again would allow me to work with Dr. Halseth (director of bands at CSUS) and gain the benefit of his experience and master's program without the pesky requirement of 5 years conducting experience to work with his own bands.

So, yeah. Right now I have 5 and a half hours of class a week. Plus lessons, a few rehearsals and a good 10 or so hours of practice. I'm used to somewhere around 15-20 hours of class and 20-30 hours of work. Without too much to do, I decided to write more and now I've gotten caught up in writing a novel. 50,000 words is my goal for a first draft to be done in 10 weeks. Nothing fancy, no delusions, just something to feel productive and keep myself entertained. I hit 7500 words in my first week, not a bad start, but I'm slowing down. This draft is for concept - content and style will be focused on in later drafts.

That doesn't stop my brother or my friends from making the above reference though.

That's a negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full.

I was catching up on my reading, and ran across this commentary on McCain and Obama and their "hawkish" attacks on wall street, both calling for regulatory reform.

Mixing metaphors is always bad, but I giggled uncontrollably when they called McCain a Goose.

I know, the whole point of the article is falconry, raptor metaphors and such, but they called the country's "Original Maverick" Goose.

This of course leaves Palin as the last "Maverick" standing.

And ferocious? I'm sorry governor, but your wingman may need more lipstick.

Someone beat me to it.

Despite the McCain "Doesn't know who the 'president' of Spain is / considers a NATO ally to be a rogue state" stuff that's floating around everywhere, a good friend of mine brought something to my attention. There may be a better reason McCain doesn't want to talk about Spain.

As a pilot he was responsible for a blackout there.

That was after he'd crashed a few other places. 

Also: I like the 20 hours of combat time, and 28 medals.

I caught a lot of flak for picking on McCain for being a poor student, a poor pilot. It looked like I was bashing the Naval Academy to some. Whatever the sink or swim atmosphere there may exist at Annapolis, I still believe the achievements of others may have been brought down when McCain was pushed through, buoyed by his father's admiralty.

Bush got through Yale, and we know that was a sham. I'm just saying.

Assigned Reading.

I'm entertaining myself with a side project at the moment, and it's keeping me writing.

To keep you busy, I'll point you around. 

On Economics and apocalypse, as if you haven't heard enough: here

If you hadn't read it yet, the NY times article that spells everything out about Palin. McCain denied the book banning deal, as mayor. But the charge comes at her from when she was on the city council.

And finally, it seems someone put some hard work into looking at McCain's commercials.

Sacred Music

This semester I'm singing in two choirs, taking voice lessons and a course on K-12 Vocal Pedagogy. Vocal performance was my weakest point in studying music and I'm hoping to strengthen my voice, it's helped with score reading and playing brass instruments as well, anything where I need to hear pitches in my head.

The point of this post though, is I've run up against a huge amount of sacred music in this endeavor. 

This is not surprising. If you look at the history of music, it's hard not to believe that about 90% of vocal music is sacred music, written for worship. This is 90% (if not more) of everything, all vocal music leading up to and including everything heard on broadway, on the radio, everything. In studying it, there's no escape. I don't have any particular problem with sacred music, in fact I enjoy listening to much of it. Baroque Cantatas, so many settings of Latin Masses. I recently joined a church, specifically for the purpose of singing in its choir. Yeah, I'm going to hell. Anyways. I sing through a mass twice a week, settings of psalms, everything, without blinking. The music director for Sacred Heart is a renown conductor and arranger and his music beautiful in its simplicity; clear, reverent and austere. 

Sacred music is fine, it's great; faith inspires people to creativity beyond what they expect of themselves. 

My problem is gospel music. For a few reasons.

A.) I find praise music deeply disconcerting.

B.) I feel completely out of place singing something like "Keep yo' hand on de gospel plow" But I feel even worse placing stress on the syllables of your and the when they're missing.

C.) I can't deal with people clapping while they're singing. It feels wrong.

D.) I desire a feeling of reverence when singing something like this, and despite the rich history of gospel music, it fails me in that respect.

People tell me I should feel joyful in my faith when singing this music and it just lays bare the fact that I don't know what I believe, question too many things to be enraptured.

Also, despite the syncopation and blues scales, I don't find it challenging or aesthetically pleasing. I'm a snob. 

The CSUS university chorus is singing one piece of which I highly approve. It's called You Are the Music (you have to click the name again, twice). Give it a bit to get past the soprano and horn solo, there's no time stamp but starting halfway through is good enough. Without mentioning one biblical word, the piece inspires reverence, and makes one believe -just for a second- in divine inspiration.

Whereas this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I've found that actually singing sacred music provides an incredible shift in perspective. However, thankfully, not nearly enough.

The pre-packaged Republican sound-bite machine.

It seems everyone was really excited to finally see Sarah Palin sit down and be interviewed, to listen to her speak without a script written for her, like at the RNC. Unfortunately it seems many were disappointed.

[interview Part 1]  [Interview Part 2]

Well, that's not to say she didn't meet or exceed the rather low expectations that were put out there for her. It's being tossed around  that she "held her own" or "came off fierce" didn't freeze up with a "deer in the headlights" deal. That's great. She's running on the Republican ticket for the white house, I certainly hope she can handle an interview.

What was disappointing is that she didn't provide anything of real substance in her answers, something to demonstrate to everyone paying close attention to what she was saying that she actually knew what she was talking about and had an interest in what was going on in the world.

Over at the Economist's Democracy in America page, they said it best:

There was something very troubling about the whole affair. The reason why many voters have forgiven Barack Obama his lack of experience is because they have confidence in his ability to think critically about the major issues facing America. Did voters come away with the same confidence in Ms Palin last night? I don't see how they could have.

... Ms Palin came off as a pre-packaged Republican sound-bite machine—the predictable product of a week of cramming with John McCain's advisers. When pressed on specific questions about Russia, Israel, Iran and Pakistan, she seemed to rely on campaign talking points, oftentimes repeating similar phrases in her answers. When those didn't fit, her answers were vague. When, for example, she was asked about cross-border raids into Pakistan, she talked about "building new relationships" and "working with existing allies", but made no specific references to any country or policy.

Ever since her debut, Republicans have been successfully diverting attention from McCain to Palin, focusing the debate over experience to compare Palin and Obama, and saying the comparison is more valid than comparing Obama to McCain. An unfortunate derailment, but this interview has shown that even that comparison is invalid and Palin, even after serious coaching is unqualified to be Vice President of the United States of America.

Then again, I wouldn't mind watching a real life Disney tragedy unfold from a safe distance.

Yeah, I know. Matt Damon, an actor, is highly qualified to comment on the issue. Even if the dinosaur issue was made up by some blogger, he has a point. Palin is a creationist, and wants that "theory" taught in schools. 

If she believes in a literal reading of Biblical creation, then she believes that the Earth was formed ten thousand years ago and that dinosaurs existed around that time.

And yes, she tried to ban books.

What could be worse?

I'm sorry lady, three strikes and you're out (read: a dangerous religious nutjob with no business in public office whatsoever)

Oh yeah. Here's the best part though, she supports her church in its endeavor to "save" homosexual people through the power of prayer. 

Naive? Yes. Intolerant? Yes. Christlike? No.

Unity.

Hey look, it's September eleventh. The subject is touchy, so I can't be too careful about being snarky. But! Here's something to think about.

Being shrewd politicians, both Obama and McCain are capitalizing on this sense of Unity. Seeing as the only statesmanlike thing to do today, is to not campaign, to throw aside the politics that are so divisive to our country, they've instead politicized the date and the remembrance of the tragedy, just as McCain did with Hurricane Gustav. No one can blame them, it's expected of them.

Great. That's fine. The problem? The media is pulling for a squabble. Playing on the controversy and mudslinging that has ramped up in the past week, Time is betting on trouble.

But on Thursday, Sept. 11, John McCain and Barack Obama will take a break. A brief moment of silence will descend on the presidential campaign. Call it a pause. Or maybe a cease-fire.
Above all, call it temporary — and there's still a chance that it won't happen at all. (In fact, if you're in a betting mood, you might want to throw some money at the won't-happen-at-all option.)

Unity and controversy aside, today is a good day to look back at the last seven years and think hard about what happened.

On September eleventh, 2001, I went to school. I don't really remember anything until walking into my A set civics class (we had rotating periods, but first period was always A set) and watching everyone huddled around the tv.  My teacher was going to show a video, so we were lucky enough to have a T.V. that morning, tuned to the news. (Of course, every channel was the same). People were in shock, some were crying, all were afraid.

Irrational fear, borne out of tragedy, yes but completely irrational. The worse part is, it never subsided.

I'm going to quote Ze Frank again (the goofy fellow with the blonde hair who spoke to you earlier). You may think it strange that I should quote someone who doesn't blink, he's not an "expert on terrorism" and that's what makes him credible.

Apparently, the Brits caught some douchebags who were going to blow up some planes. Now, the way I see it, you can't have terrorism without terror. The strategy of terrorism is to use isolated acts of violence to instill fear and confusion into the population at large. A small number of people can incapacitate a society by leveraging our inability to understand risk.

Airline industry stocks plummetted today, while the industry braced for a rash of cancellations. This, despite the fact that even with the risk of airplane bombings it's still more dangerous to drive your car. Or smoke cigarettes.

As long as a small group of people can inflict mass panic across a large population, the tactic itself will remain viable. One way to deal a blow to the effectiveness of terrorism is to deal with the terror itself.

London's police deputy commissioner Paul Stevenson said that the plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale." No, it is imaginable: between three and ten flights out of thousands would have resulted in the terrible loss of human life.

Bush today said this country is safer today than it was prior to 9/11. Personally, I don't think he knows. Whether we like it or not, terrorist attacks on Americans are now part of the global reality. They will continue to happen. Many places around the globe have had to deal with a similar reality for years. India, Ireland, England, Spain, Russia, to name a few. In many cases, these societies have pulled together and not allowed isolated acts of violence to tear at their fiber. Like disease and the forces of nature, it's a risk that we have to rationally come to terms with. The government's responsibility is to make sure that fear and terror are not disproportionate to the reality of the situation. [Emphasis mine]

Today the President said, "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom to hurt our nation." Generalized statements like this which instill nebulous fear without specific information are exactly in line with the goals of terrorism. [8.10.06].

Bush declared war on Terror (complete with a blank check from the senate), but we had already lost.
 

The term 'Pre-9/11 mindset' has been slung around as an insult, but think about it. Today we live in a culture of fear. Remember the threat levels? 

"What color of fear to we get to deal with today? Orange? That means terrorists could attack anywhere at any moment! I shouldn't fly/drive/go to work/feed my fish/mow my lawn today."

On September Eleventh, 2001, America suffered what can be argued as the greatest tragedy it has ever faced. This is true, but not only because it was the greatest single loss of civilian life. The greater tragedy is that America, our ideals, what our nation stands for and how we're perceived have been forever altered. 

Bias and the Media.

Don't worry, we'll get to that in a second.

On Thursday I sat around a table with several men I met through my involvement with the climbing program at Cody. Granted, two of them I've known for much, much longer, but that's irrelevant. The troop's current scoutmaster, his good friend the rangemaster, Mike's dad, the rifle merit badge counsellor, and of course Mike, the lead instructor of the climbing program.

We were drinking beer and grilling kabobs and catching up when suddenly someone started talking about Ms. Palin, well, more that there was a picture circulating the internet of her at a pool party in a stars-and-stripes bikini sporting a rifle and posing for the camera. Charming, and quite a talking point for middle aged men, but it soon digressed into politics. Mike and I were the only ones under 50, and I was surprised to learn, the only ones who voted for Kerry in 2004. The three older men had all been republicans, that is till this election. 

All were fiscally conservative, one (a seasoned hunter) had let gun rights guide his politics, another had been raised on GOP doctrine and didn't think much of it before moving out to California. Some voted for McCain in 2000, the other reluctantly volunteered previous support for Bush. 

What astounded me was we were all on the same page for this election. Our discussions went round in circles but no debate popped up to spoil our dinner. There's something to be said for surrounding yourself with like minded people, it keeps you from having to think too much for yourself, no one had to defend what they said as we all agreed.

That's why I'm thankful for this Trevor kid. I have to think for myself and support any claims I make to him, as he takes everything that comes from my mouth as liberal drivel and inherently untrue. My goal is to convince him, if not of my views, that his particular mindset is poisonous and unhelpful. The only way to do this is that as long as he keeps rehashing his political talking points straight from Fox News, to keep thumping him until he learns to ask his own questions.

Now we've been going back and forth on the issue of experience in the 2008 election. His argument that he would take Palin over Obama, saying the senator's experience is much closer to Palin's than it is to McCain's. I refuted his arguments, and made my own; that this experience issue was created by Obama's opponents when they couldn't attack him by discussing the issues.

Besides playing along and recounting all of the candidates experience as elected officials, foreign policy experience and everything else, I opened up a new scope to the experience issue, drawing things back into focus between Obama and McCain. 

[He had called Obama's bid for the presidency "arrogant"] What may be arrogant (this is only my opinion) is that someone who was trained to fly a fighter jet and almost failed out of the naval academy (5th from the bottom of his class of 899) believes he is qualified for a position where he will be required to uphold and a defend the constitution. In fact he is arrogant enough to believe he is more qualified than a man who not only studied international politics, but wrote his senior thesis on disarming Russia's nuclear arsenal, earned a law degree from Harvard and is a professor of constitutional law. 

McCain takes a stance that paralell's Mr. Bush (suprise!) that education is not an important issue and that the most powerful man in the free world should not be as learned as possible. In fact, many conservative pundits throw Obama's education in his face calling him an elitist. Unfortunately leading a government is about creating and upholding laws, not flying planes, or rather, getting shot down.

In arguing against comparing Obama with Palin, I posted an article from the economist to back my claims, and called it "unbiased." This is after Trevor had complained that ABC and NBC were woefully biased in their coverage of the RNC. He then came back and stomped me saying that the newspaper had a clear bias, the article being the opinion of a single journalist and that it was an opinion piece.

What I meant by unbiased (and what I should have said) was that the piece was based on sound investigative journalism, without the same bias held in the American media. The bias I speak of is not clearly ideological, left or right leaning (unless we're talking about FOX news) but rather a bias towards controversy, sensationalism, and superficiality in their coverage. News in America is a form of entertainment and rarely seems to cover what is important, only what will captivate its audiences. That which starts out on television news programming as entertainment finds its way eventually into print media as "news."

What's funny is that recently, the republican party has condemned the behavior of the news media for sensationalizing the story of Sarah Palin, her kid, her kid's kid, her CHOICE to keep the child etc. What's worse is that true journalism is being admonished along with the superficial tactics of the American media. However, the Republicans can't have it both ways. Often (again, thanks to FOX) they reap the benefits of having the masses contented on the circuses they create, but now that the lions are coming after them, they scream foul play. 

I have to admit, it's fun to watch.

[Edit: I found the video that explains the propaganda campaign that's fed straight to FOX from the Bush administration]

Beware the Rhetorical Question...

...as someone may answer it.

I've recently been engaging in a remote debate with a past student of mine on all the fun topics. I'm wasting my time, I know, but I have time to waste. I like to disagree with people, it makes me think harder about what I believe.

I'm going to repost a comment he made recently after joining the community NObama.com:

My mission for the next few months: help keep Obama out of office and get McCain elected. Since when did being a good speechmaker make you a good candidate for President? Since when did such ethereal values as hope and change become a winning platform and game plan? Since when did "reaching across the isle" manifest itself as being the most liberal senator in terms of voting records. Since when did several short trips overseas give a junior senator foreign policy knowhow? Since when did radical change become a substitute for experience and proven competency. Since when? It may be taboo in a liberal haven like Davis to speak truth to Obama's incompetency and inconsistency and to scorn his rock-star popularity and arrogance, but watch out my Facebook friends, because that is my mission for the next three months.

My pledge: To abstain from personal or unfounded attacks, to stick to the facts and disclose when I am relaying heresay, to remain faithful to a motivation of love of people.

After a comment he made recently about how the first amendment needed to be reigned in a bit, I had a small aneurism, compared with this though, my brain started leaking out my ears.

I respect this kid, he's rather intelligent, a competent writer and one of the best saxophonists I know, so I'm indulging him in debate. 

Here goes:

Since when did being a good speechmaker make you a good candidate for President?

I’d like to concede the point that Obama’s skill as an orator doesn’t exclusively qualify him to be president, but I’d also like to point out that your political consciousness stretches back only over the past eight years, at most. At ten years old, you may not have had the vocabulary or linguistic ability to distinguish Nuke-ular from Nuclear, but as a man leading and representing a nation, public speaking, vocabulary and rhetorical skills are necessary. Any good leader must be able to speak competently for his people. A great leader must be able to comfort, inspire and rally his people with his oratory. Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt; all were great leaders, and all great orators. Being a skilled speaker may not qualify you for the job, but it is a requirement, one on which we lowered the bar considerably in 2000 and 2004.

Since when did such ethereal values as hope and change become a winning platform and a game plan.

Please, sir, go read the declaration of independence and constitution of the United States. Hope for a better life, freedom from a repressive theocratic state. Oh yes, then go read the policies, platform and gameplan he clearly defines on his website.

Since when did several short trips overseas give a junior senator foreign policy knowhow?

Since when did governing a state in proximity to the outlying provincial local governments in Russia mean “foreign policy experience”. I'm sorry he suffered, but since when did rotting in a prison cell for five years qualify a man as a war hero. Since when does being a warrior for a nation qualify a man to broker peace deals and diplomacy? Sorry, that didn’t answer the question. 

The answer to your question and all of mine? Never. 

But how many trips abroad did Governor Bush or Governor Clinton take, acting on behalf of our nation to gain foreign policy experience before assuming the office of president? How much foreign policy experience did either have? The answer to both those questions is the same.

I have questions for you too, sir:

Since when did experience with the status quo in DC that both parties are blaming for the problems there equate to “proven competency.” And how, if the status quo is being labeled as the problem, is the idea “radical change” even considered an issue? Painting your pet elephant blue doesn’t mean you’re not still going to end up knee high in elephant shit.

Since when did running for the office of the president equate with pushing a religiously motivated conservative social agenda that is at odds with the constitution that the office is sworn to protect?

Since when did a “motivation for a love of people” mean advocating income disparity, not backing a universal health care plan, not spending government money to benefit those Americans living just above (or below) the poverty line and instead, waging exhaustively expensive wars on foreign soil, wars that promise no benefit for any involved.

Since when is it ok for a government to sow discord and fear amongst its people through mass media in order to frame foreign policy issues as it sees fit and draw our attention from our shrinking civil liberties so it can maintain its power and advocate hate and xenophobia against certain groups who make up its citizenry. (When's our next Hate Week?).

Since when has it been ok for the leader of our nation to let his foreign and domestic policy be dictated by his own personal religious beliefs?

How can you even convince yourself that pushing the conservative agenda on legislating Gay marriage is Christlike, when the agenda itself is aimed at making homosexual people “the other;” second class citizens, and unequal before the law when compared with yourself?

How is the agenda of teaching creationism and denying evolution as scientific fact helpful to the youth struggling to learn something accepted by the rest of the western world? How does this help them develop the critical thinking skills students need to survive in today's world if they are content in their faith and to never ask "Why"?

I know you are motivated to vote based on your religious beliefs. In order to actually answer these questions, I must ask you to step out of the ideology by which you’ve been interpellated. I ask you to look at the issues without your religion, so your answers can apply to all citizens of the United States, not just protestant evangelical Christians.

If anyone else reading this would like to answer these questions, please do.

Conspiracy to commit Riot.

Those are delicious words. Conspiracy to Commit Riot.

I was looking around for what those words meant, and it turns out someone did my homework for me, a wonderful fellow by the name of Michael Gass at Docudharma.com

Take a second to read that. No really, please.

Ok, remember those people whose homes were raided. They were charged with Conspiracy to Commit Riot. 

Those journalists who were arrested for trying to cover the protests, the ones from Democracy Now? They were charged with Felony Riot.

That includes this journalist, Nicole Salazar. One of those criminal anarchists armed with that deadly video camera:

For more of what happened, listen to this interview with Amy Goodman, describing what happened when she went down to discuss Nicole's Arrest and find out what happened.

My favorite quote is from another interview: 

"I told them I had [press] credentials. A secret service agent came over and pulled them off and said 'Now you don't."

Man I love me some Federal Government.

Better off in Beijing.

I spent my weekend with the mainstream media, instead of forwarding the propaganda of the Fascist left and now I must pay the price, writing this a day late and a dollar short.

This weekend, the news was marred with protests in St. Paul Minnesota. Rather, police raids on "suspected protesters." I don't understand how you can suspect someone of protesting, it's not that hard to figure it out. Either they are protesting, violently protesting, or gathered together in the privacy of their home and not protesting.

Dennis I think summed it up well.

I was outraged when I read this. Who trained these officers? Certainly not Oceania's finest. How do they not know the proper ways to arrest suspected protesters? Where's the tear gas, the dogs? Where are the fire hoses?

At least bring along your M-16 rifles so you can smack the hippies when they get smart and open their mouths about their first amendment rights.

You know, the first amendment, the one that says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or that pesky fourteenth amendment that extends these restrictions of government to the state and local governments:

... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's what the rifle butt is for. Just smash the god-hating commie's teeth in, that'll shut him up.

Update: It's not just the local law enforcement, it seems the Feds are getting in on the fun too.