Menu Bar
StrangeAttractor's Comments
Re: Climate Change: Isn't It Natural?
That was great -- funny, smarmy, and informative -- thanks for posting.
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: 10 yo Won't Say Pledge and Wants Rights for Gays
"But to the issue at hand, how does a right become a right? Because a minority wishes it? I certainly hope not."
Actually, the Federalist Papers show a strong concern for what is usually called "the Tyranny of the Majority."
One of the reasons why they designed a democratic republic (elected representatives) rather than a true democracy (direct rule of the people) is because they were rightfully concerned with both demagoguery and the rule of the mob.
In building in all the "checks and balances" we often talk about when discussing the structure of the U.S. government, the founders demonstrated a consistent concern for the rights of the minority.
That, and the fact our country came of age with the rise of capitalism and industry, is probably why Americans have such a strong tendency towards individualism.
Our interpretation of "freedom" is often construed as the idea of a person's individual rights being extended as far as possible without trampling the rights of others.
And the decisions regarding Constitutional rights -- or the Amendments made to it -- which are generally the most revered by later generations are those which broaden rather than restrict the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness.
So stating that the majority of Americans do not approve of the right to a same-sex marriage (and that's by no means a unanimous majority) doesn't strengthen the argument we shouldn't grant the right to same-sex marriage.
I feel pretty confident that when woman were given the vote, the majority of Americans (including women) didn't think it should have happened.
When Jim Crow laws were abolished, I feel pretty certain that most Americans -- at least in the states with those laws -- didn't support an integrated society.
Most Americans, until very recently, were highly opposed to interracial marriages, although that right, too, was granted to the minority.
Actually, the Federalist Papers show a strong concern for what is usually called "the Tyranny of the Majority."
One of the reasons why they designed a democratic republic (elected representatives) rather than a true democracy (direct rule of the people) is because they were rightfully concerned with both demagoguery and the rule of the mob.
In building in all the "checks and balances" we often talk about when discussing the structure of the U.S. government, the founders demonstrated a consistent concern for the rights of the minority.
That, and the fact our country came of age with the rise of capitalism and industry, is probably why Americans have such a strong tendency towards individualism.
Our interpretation of "freedom" is often construed as the idea of a person's individual rights being extended as far as possible without trampling the rights of others.
And the decisions regarding Constitutional rights -- or the Amendments made to it -- which are generally the most revered by later generations are those which broaden rather than restrict the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness.
So stating that the majority of Americans do not approve of the right to a same-sex marriage (and that's by no means a unanimous majority) doesn't strengthen the argument we shouldn't grant the right to same-sex marriage.
I feel pretty confident that when woman were given the vote, the majority of Americans (including women) didn't think it should have happened.
When Jim Crow laws were abolished, I feel pretty certain that most Americans -- at least in the states with those laws -- didn't support an integrated society.
Most Americans, until very recently, were highly opposed to interracial marriages, although that right, too, was granted to the minority.
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: The Who: My Generation, Live
Nice to see this here....
The explosions at the end were notorious -- Moon deliberately used far more explosives than expected to (winding up with a piece of drum cymbal embedded in his arm), and it's frequently said that this is what led to Townshend's tinnitus.
Good mention of this in the Wikipedia article on Moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Moon
and the write up on the song itself is an unusually well-written Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Generation_%28The_Who_song%29
The explosions at the end were notorious -- Moon deliberately used far more explosives than expected to (winding up with a piece of drum cymbal embedded in his arm), and it's frequently said that this is what led to Townshend's tinnitus.
Good mention of this in the Wikipedia article on Moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Moon
and the write up on the song itself is an unusually well-written Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Generation_%28The_Who_song%29
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Bill O'Reilly & Cheech and Chong on Legalization of Marijuana
They're kind of O'Reilly proof, aren't they?
Too laid back to get a rise out of (well, actually Chong looked like he was under heavy self-restraint).
Reilly wasn't particularly belligerent, though -- you get the strong feeling that he was one of the stoned audience members back in the day...
Too laid back to get a rise out of (well, actually Chong looked like he was under heavy self-restraint).
Reilly wasn't particularly belligerent, though -- you get the strong feeling that he was one of the stoned audience members back in the day...
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Perfect Day: BBC Promotion
Where the hell did this come from? Why was it done?
(Loved it, but... why? Was it a benefit?)
(Loved it, but... why? Was it a benefit?)
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: David Bowie: Blue Jean
You know, it was one of few songs from that album I really liked, but I never saw the video.
He's doing a send-up of Rudolph Valentino, isn't he?
He's doing a send-up of Rudolph Valentino, isn't he?
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: David Bowie vs Annie Lennox: Under Pressure
Annie Lenox is a beautiful choice for the Freddy Mercury stand-in... gorgeous video, makes me painfully nostalgic for the era. Interesting that this was 1992! Really??? I guess it must be because Mercury is dead, but Bowie looks exactly like his 1982 incarnation... and it's just 4 years before he reinvents himself again (Earthling, where he looks a more grizzled version of himself in Labyrinth).
PS Bonus points for fucking Mick Ronson!
PS Bonus points for fucking Mick Ronson!
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: The Flaming Lips: Bohemian Rhapsody
But then again, maybe I missed the point... they were just having some fun, hence the dumb wasabi naked girl stuff. It wasn't ironic -- they covered the original with full fidelity -- but they wanted you to know that you shouldn't take it too seriously. (It's like covering Stairway to Heaven, after all...)
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: The Flaming Lips: Bohemian Rhapsody
Wow...
I really like them, but I always thought what-sis-name had a reedy, thin Neil Young voice (not that there's anything wrong with that....)
But apparently that's just an affect (like Dylan's "sand-n-glue voice"). The guy can really sing.
It's a perfect cover, but that would be my main criticism -- if you take on a towering classic like Bohemian Rhapsody (already perfect in the original) the only way to go is to make an entirely unexpected tribute. Good example -- the Breeders' cover of Happiness is A Warm Gun.
But this was more like the exactly-like-the-original-note-for-note mentality you expect from good cover bands -- impressive for technique, but boring in terms of creativity.
I really like them, but I always thought what-sis-name had a reedy, thin Neil Young voice (not that there's anything wrong with that....)
But apparently that's just an affect (like Dylan's "sand-n-glue voice"). The guy can really sing.
It's a perfect cover, but that would be my main criticism -- if you take on a towering classic like Bohemian Rhapsody (already perfect in the original) the only way to go is to make an entirely unexpected tribute. Good example -- the Breeders' cover of Happiness is A Warm Gun.
But this was more like the exactly-like-the-original-note-for-note mentality you expect from good cover bands -- impressive for technique, but boring in terms of creativity.
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Olbermann: New York Post Law Suit
Still, you gotta think that if you were Guzman.... as a working professional in the world of journalism, were you really surprised that the NY Post turned to be a stronghold of sexism and racism?
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Tucker Carlson Attacks Jon Stewart--Calls Him a 'Partisan Hack'
Mom? Is that you?
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Mr. Bean: Shopping
Damn! I was going to make some comment about how Rowan Atkinson is one of the best physical comedians ever (of equal caliber to John Cleese and Harpo Marx), but man, it was nice to see someone say what you did.
What the hell happened to Britain? Was it Tony Blair that brought out the Reign of the Local Council?
(And I say all this as a fairly left-of-center American...).
I'm surprised that more right-wingers in the US don't point to Britain, as it really is the socialist nightmare they keep predicting for this county (but then again, the right-wing core constituency has very little idea that there are, in fact, nations outside the United States, with their own history and characteristics, etc.)
Anyway, spot-on, Mr. Wolf.
What the hell happened to Britain? Was it Tony Blair that brought out the Reign of the Local Council?
(And I say all this as a fairly left-of-center American...).
I'm surprised that more right-wingers in the US don't point to Britain, as it really is the socialist nightmare they keep predicting for this county (but then again, the right-wing core constituency has very little idea that there are, in fact, nations outside the United States, with their own history and characteristics, etc.)
Anyway, spot-on, Mr. Wolf.
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Carrie Prejean Threatens to Leave Larry King Live Due to Larry Being "Inappropriate"
She'll go far, I suspect. She's got her finger on our country's culture-of-victimhood pulse (it's a bi-partisan passion: self-pity), and I'm guessing all the far-right blogs have been quite obliging about spinning her self-martrydom as Prejean wants them to, casting Larry "soft ball" King in the role of a persecuting King Herod....
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Richard Pryor vs Hostile Audience
And fewer still can do all of them at the same time.
By: StrangeAttractor
Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he spokesman for scientists (if there were such a thing).
He is an advocate and an activist. (Not that those are bad things, but he is not a scientific expert and no one would say so, not even him.... I think.)
Al Gore notwithstanding, I don't think the science is ever "settled" with complex phenomena like climate.
There is consensus. But even Newtonian physics turned out to be capable of refinement...
---
"I agree that we should notice if our planet is heating up. I also believe we should notice if it's natural or man-made.... What if we manage to wean the world of carbon fuel and it doesn't make one bit of difference? "
----
But I think exactly the feeling of most people who believe we should cut back carbon emissions, etc. now before it's too late.
It's that we don't really know, but there's a very strong possibility that man-made impact *will* cause severe, life-threatening climate change in the next century.
We are wagering on this uncertain hypothesis. If we make every attempt to cut back on carbon-emissions, and other human practices that may be impacting the climate of the planet, and we later discover that in fact global warming has been caused by a natural factor... well, what's the problem? In the meantime, we've probably come up with all sorts of new ways to produce energy and better methods at conserving resources. And now that we understand the problem better, perhaps we'll have a fighting chance of doing something about it.
That's if you're right... that climate change is due to natural, not man-made factors.
But if you're wrong, and it's primarily due to man-made factors AND we do nothing about it until we understand climatology better, it may be too late for us to reverse the effects.
So in this wager, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?
I've never really understood why anyone would feel differently...