Warren G. Harding Was A Negro

Colbert's "Threatdown." You have to watch the whole 5 minutes, because "Secret Negro Presidents" is Threat #1!

Hah!

Chopin Prelude in G Minor, Opus 28 No. 22

"Molto Agitato"

Yep, it is "Very Agitated" indeed! And brutal. It's not your nice-aunties-tea-and-crumpets sort of Chopin. It's in your face. Harsh even. Which is why I think it is so seldom played or written about.

I like to think of it as the "No More War, You Muthas!" "Don't try busting this Union, sucker!" "Don't EVEN mess with me!" Prelude.

I need to work on my "bravura" technique. Those left hand octaves are killing me.

TAGS: Chopin Preludes, Tumultuous, I really need to practice more

There Is Something Wrong With This...

And

No way is this blog "genius" level, and I happen to know it's 50% evil.

I'm Voting Republican

[ SNARK!]

[/SNARK!]

Truth in humor and satire! This video appears to be going viral. I've seen it at Crooks and Liars, Down With Tyranny and other sites today. The originator site is I'm Voting Republican

TAGS: Humor, VOTE!, Rethuglicans, Sum peeple ar stoopid

SCOTUS Appears To Show Signs Of Functioning

One branch of the Government appears to be functioning correctly, at least in this instance.

From ThinkProgress.org today:

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, handed the Bush
administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been
held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

[...]

SCOTUSBlog calls the ruling "a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies" because it found that "Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion."

Wow! Score 1 for The Constitution!

UPDATE: The full case and decision are available online (pdf) here at SCOTUSBlog

Glenzilla weighs in, emphasis his:

In its decision, the Court emphasized (and revived) some of the
most vital principles of our system of Government which have been trampled upon
and degraded over the last seven years (emphasis added):

The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .

Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review
is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority
to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the
Executive's power to detain. . . .

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further
considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to
freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from
arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive,
and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

In ruling that the CSRTs woefully fail to provide the constitutionally guaranteed safeguards, the Court quoted Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 84: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." It is that deeply tyrannical practice -- implemented by the Bush administration and authorized by a bipartisan act of Congress -- which the U.S. Supreme Court, today, struck down.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was -- and remains -- one of the great stains on our national political character. It was passed by a substantial majority in the Senate (65-34) with the support of every single Senate Republican (except Chafee) and 12 Senate Democrats. No filibuster was even attempted. It passed by a similar margin in the House, where 34 Democrats joined 219 Republicans to enact it. One of the most extraordinary quotes of the post-9/11 era came from GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, who said at the time that that the Military Commissions Act -- because it explicitly barred federal courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions brought by Guantanamo detainees -- "sets back basic rights by some 900 years" and was "patently unconstitutional on its face" -- and Specter then proceeded to vote for it.

Now I have zero expectation that the Executive Branch will perform properly, but erm, maybe the Senate and the House could?

That would be music to my ears:

Chopin Etude, Opus 25 No. 1 A Flat Major

I have been working on consolidating all the videos I have made between different Youtube and Photobucket accounts. (In other words, I have forgotten all the crap I've made, and didn't want to repeat an effort, as I really want to add to the music repertoire.

Come to find out, I actually have something on the Intertubz with over 1,000 views! I was quite startled to learn that actually. It's this recording of the Chopin Etude, Opus 25 No. 1 A Flat Major.

Wiki says:

As a technical work, this piece requires an extremely flexible hand, wide spans between fingers, accuracy in large leaps, and exceptionally fine tone control governed by a strong musical instinct. The repeated figures of the arpeggiated inner voices can easily result in an apparent excess, unless phrased artistically. Another difficulty this étude presents is the voicing of the inner counter-melodies. Schumann once commented on Chopin's subtle emphasis on certain melodies throughout this piece.

I say: Duh. Big Giant Arpeggios sort of have that flexible thing as a given. Particularly if you're trying to get a melodic line out of said Big Giant Arpeggios. Oh, and the fuckers are quasi-syncopated as sextuplets. That means six notes against one beat. Enough musico-technobabble.

(Thanks to Mr. B filmed that for me. And a couple other vids too. He has very wisely now left me to me own devices for this video fetish, and I can't say as I blame him, although if I come up with something in the future that I really asked nicely for, he'll help me out I'm sure.)

I'm glad I moved the synth out to the parlor too, so now I have all the music devices in one networked spot. But on the downside, it's one more beast out of the barn. I'll have to finish up that goddamned Ballade and the "Rhapsody in Blue." But I think my next Chopin will be a funky Prelude, rarely played.

Meet Jason Furman, Economic Policy Advisor to Obama

This is Jason Furman -------------------------------------------->

According to his bio at the Brookings Institution:

Jason Furman has conducted research and policy work on issues that include taxes, health care and Social Security. He is the former director of The Hamilton Project, an initiative that develops policy proposals to achieve shared economic growth. Dr. Furman is currently on a leave of absence from Brookings.

The Right will shriek that the Brookings Institution is leftist, when in my opinion it has moved from Left to Center, and in some cases even Right. For instance the odious and ever wrong war hawk Michael O'Hanlon is a Brookings scholar.



Here it comes: Furman is a defender of Wal-Mart! From the New York Sun:

Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator
Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed
with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans.

The appointment of Jason Furman, 37, a former Clinton administration official who is a visiting scholar at New York University, immediately met with skepticism from some who have faulted Wal-Mart for being stingy toward its workforce.

"It's surprising because this guy seems to feel that Wal-Mart's low-wage,
low-benefit business model is good for America. That's just flat-out wrong," the
executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, David Nassar, said. "This guy helped to
lend credibility to the Wal-Mart business model. That was disappointing then and
it's disappointing now given this position," said Mr. Nassar, whose group is
backed by a board that includes the president of the Service Employees
International Union, Andrew Stern. Mr. Nassar quickly added that he was "not
critiquing the Obama campaign."

Hang on a second here - why not criticize the Obama campaign? He challenged Hillary Clinton for being on the Board of Wal-Mart and has criticized the company before saying they should pay a living wage. So what's his real position? It is my opinion that since Obama is now the de-facto head of the Democratic Party, he needs to be reminded to hold close to Democratic ideals and principles.



And this is controversial advisor #2 - the first one I was appalled by was John Brennan, Obama's Foreign Policy and Intelligence advisor who agrees with the Bush administration that Telcos should have immunity for illegal warrantless wiretapping. (BTW, both Clinton and Obama left the Senate floor just before the crucial FISA vote in December, for which I am still pissed at them both.) Brennan's firm, The Analysis Corp, is responsible for the passport breach scandal as well.

I think I understand what's going on here. Having secured the left-based candidacy, the well known tactic of swinging to the center-right in order to win more votes is the campaign's strategy. I think he can win without going that far, I really do. People are sick of the status quo, and to invite some of that status quo right into your campaign is, I think, a big mistake.


Call the campaign gurus, and tell them:

David Axelrod ( Advisor – Media & Ads, www.akpmedia.com/ )
David Plouffe ( Campaign Manager, www.akpmedia.com/ )
Email : axelrod@akpmedia.com ( David Axelrod ) , info@akpmedia.com ( David Plouffe )
Tel : 202-224-2854 ( Washington – Obama’s office )
312-664-7500 ( Chicago )
212-529-5775 ( New York )
Addr : 730 N. Franklin Suite 404 Chicago, IL 60610
928 Broadway, Suite 505 New York, NY 10010