It has become customary of people to send out mass text messages to everyone on each major holiday, and it's a custom I despise. I got six of them throughout Christmas day, most of them were a generic "Merry Christmas."
Holiday greetings should be personal. These text messages just don't feel that way, especially with the knowledge that 100 other people got it.
The personalized ones I received were nice, though.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
What I'm Listening To: Fleet Foxes
To start off, some lyrics:
I feel like I'm the last person to discover the Fleet Foxes, considering they released an album and an EP this year. The last of those two released back in June. In the amorphous genre known as alternative, Fleet Foxes work is surprisingly lo-fi.
The Fleet Foxes two albums - the Sun Giant EP and their self-titled full length album - were rated jointly by Pitchfork Media as the best album of 2008. The song White Winter Hymnal is rated as the second best song of the year by them as well.
(Note - You can right click and download the song above and download it from Pitchfork, who is giving it away for free.)
Pitchfork's word isn't enough, considering how fickle they tend to be with good albums. It also tops best album lists for the Times of London, 11th on Rolling Stone's list, fifth on Spin Magazine's list, and topped Australia's Wireless Bollinger's list.
This proves one thing to me - the people who go over indie-pop and alternative music with a fine tooth comb really like Fleet Foxes. It also proves that they also seek out the most obscure and lo-fi bands they can find, but that discussion has been done already by a more famous blog.
The Fleet Foxes are worth checking out if you have a a taste for music that is a mix between folk and classical. Rating Fleet Foxes self-titled album as the best of the year might be overstating the band's talent, but there's a lot to look forward to from the Seattle-quintet if they keep on the same track they have set out ...
... oh, and I hope everyone had a merry Christmas.
I was following the pack
all swallowed in their coats
with scarves of red tied ’round their throats
to keep their little heads
from fallin’ in the snow
And I turned ’round and there you go
And, Michael, you would fall
and turn the white snow red as strawberries
in the summertime
— Fleet Foxes, "White Winter Hymnal"
I feel like I'm the last person to discover the Fleet Foxes, considering they released an album and an EP this year. The last of those two released back in June. In the amorphous genre known as alternative, Fleet Foxes work is surprisingly lo-fi.
The Fleet Foxes two albums - the Sun Giant EP and their self-titled full length album - were rated jointly by Pitchfork Media as the best album of 2008. The song White Winter Hymnal is rated as the second best song of the year by them as well.
(Note - You can right click and download the song above and download it from Pitchfork, who is giving it away for free.)
Pitchfork's word isn't enough, considering how fickle they tend to be with good albums. It also tops best album lists for the Times of London, 11th on Rolling Stone's list, fifth on Spin Magazine's list, and topped Australia's Wireless Bollinger's list.
This proves one thing to me - the people who go over indie-pop and alternative music with a fine tooth comb really like Fleet Foxes. It also proves that they also seek out the most obscure and lo-fi bands they can find, but that discussion has been done already by a more famous blog.
The Fleet Foxes are worth checking out if you have a a taste for music that is a mix between folk and classical. Rating Fleet Foxes self-titled album as the best of the year might be overstating the band's talent, but there's a lot to look forward to from the Seattle-quintet if they keep on the same track they have set out ...
... oh, and I hope everyone had a merry Christmas.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo ...
Back in November, I wrote an opinion column for the Spartan Daily about the Dhaliwal brothers suing the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Zoo for their injuries and damages relating to it.
I dismissed it as a money grab. The two deserved the mauling because the evidence strongly says the brothers and the victim, Carlos Sousa Jr., taunted the tigers, resulting in one female tiger to view them as a three-course meal.
Did I mention all three allegedly took drugs the day of the incident?
Now, the Sousa family is suing the city and zoo. His situation isn't as the open-and-shut case the Dhaliwal's case is, mostly because he's dead.
Perhaps some kind of compensation is necessary in the form of payment for medical bills and the funeral, and maybe some pain and suffering. The Sousa family still lost a loved one and deserves some sympathy for it.
The problem is Sousa was also teasing the tiger, just like the Dhaliwal brothers. Should the standard be any different?
Unfortunately for the Sousa family, my answer is still no. We as a society need to treat stupidity much like terrorism - we need to stop negotiating with the people who perpetrate it, rewarding people for it through lawsuits, and encouraging people for it.
Even though his family were not the ones who acted idiotically, we as a society can't reward them for it. Survival of the fittest doesn't always refer to brute strength and endurance of harsh conditions. It also means you're smart enough to not get yourself hurt or killed. This case, however tragic, is a modern day example of it.
The Dhaliwal's deserve nothing. I reserve empathy for people who are hurt in actual accidents, not stupidity resulting in pain and anguish.
--
An update - According to SFGate.com, an artist named John Engdahl has put together a tribute to the tiger Tatiana on the one year anniversary of the attack, and put it near Coit Tower.
I dismissed it as a money grab. The two deserved the mauling because the evidence strongly says the brothers and the victim, Carlos Sousa Jr., taunted the tigers, resulting in one female tiger to view them as a three-course meal.
Did I mention all three allegedly took drugs the day of the incident?
Now, the Sousa family is suing the city and zoo. His situation isn't as the open-and-shut case the Dhaliwal's case is, mostly because he's dead.
Perhaps some kind of compensation is necessary in the form of payment for medical bills and the funeral, and maybe some pain and suffering. The Sousa family still lost a loved one and deserves some sympathy for it.
The problem is Sousa was also teasing the tiger, just like the Dhaliwal brothers. Should the standard be any different?
Unfortunately for the Sousa family, my answer is still no. We as a society need to treat stupidity much like terrorism - we need to stop negotiating with the people who perpetrate it, rewarding people for it through lawsuits, and encouraging people for it.
Even though his family were not the ones who acted idiotically, we as a society can't reward them for it. Survival of the fittest doesn't always refer to brute strength and endurance of harsh conditions. It also means you're smart enough to not get yourself hurt or killed. This case, however tragic, is a modern day example of it.
The Dhaliwal's deserve nothing. I reserve empathy for people who are hurt in actual accidents, not stupidity resulting in pain and anguish.
--
An update - According to SFGate.com, an artist named John Engdahl has put together a tribute to the tiger Tatiana on the one year anniversary of the attack, and put it near Coit Tower.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Letter that Justifies the Prop. 8 Boycott
I know I won't let this go, but one last think I want to point out:
There's been a lot of hubbub over the people boycotting businesses who contributed to the passage of Proposition 8.
Unfortunately, when you put out a letter as malicious as this, the campaign's supporters deserve all that they have coming. This letter pulled the people who opposed Proposition 8 unnecessarily into the campaign, in turn making the people who contributed money to its passage fair game.
You reap what you sow.
There's been a lot of hubbub over the people boycotting businesses who contributed to the passage of Proposition 8.
Unfortunately, when you put out a letter as malicious as this, the campaign's supporters deserve all that they have coming. This letter pulled the people who opposed Proposition 8 unnecessarily into the campaign, in turn making the people who contributed money to its passage fair game.
You reap what you sow.
Monday, December 22, 2008
More Constitutional Arguments Against Prop 8
More in the legal case against Proposition 8, and its the most fundamental of locations yet again.
Remember the Civil War? It not only ended slavery, but it also brought about the most central of amendments to our Constitution, including the fourteenth amendment, of which section one states:
Clause 2, the long-dormant Privileges or Immunities Clause of the fourteenth amendment, another argument for removing Proposition 8 from the state's constitution.
Understandably, this one particular clause was marginalized through narrow interpretation. But that was almost 130 years ago when that definition happened, perhaps meaning the higher courts of this country need to revisit it.
All of this language is in California's Constitution, too. The state ratified the amendment in 1959, making it part of its own state constitution.
The real debate now is whether Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution, which may be subject to Supreme Court's wrath, or is an actual amendment, which really can't be stricken because it is part of the constitution.
Some of my friends have said several times that the opponents of Prop 8 should back off, and challenge it in 2010 with another amendment to the state's constitution. The argument they make repeatedly is that the will of the people would be thwarted if the courts overturn it.
My problem with that statement? The people and those they elect are so often wrong to the point of extreme prejudice and hatred.
The courts have routinely been there to fix the problems. It's there job to protect minorities from the majority, no matter who the minority may be.
If we take away their right to protect a specific minority group through a constitutional amendment would be even more of an assault on the rule of law than depriving a group of people of equal rights.
Remember the Civil War? It not only ended slavery, but it also brought about the most central of amendments to our Constitution, including the fourteenth amendment, of which section one states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Clause 2, the long-dormant Privileges or Immunities Clause of the fourteenth amendment, another argument for removing Proposition 8 from the state's constitution.
Understandably, this one particular clause was marginalized through narrow interpretation. But that was almost 130 years ago when that definition happened, perhaps meaning the higher courts of this country need to revisit it.
All of this language is in California's Constitution, too. The state ratified the amendment in 1959, making it part of its own state constitution.
The real debate now is whether Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution, which may be subject to Supreme Court's wrath, or is an actual amendment, which really can't be stricken because it is part of the constitution.
Some of my friends have said several times that the opponents of Prop 8 should back off, and challenge it in 2010 with another amendment to the state's constitution. The argument they make repeatedly is that the will of the people would be thwarted if the courts overturn it.
My problem with that statement? The people and those they elect are so often wrong to the point of extreme prejudice and hatred.
The courts have routinely been there to fix the problems. It's there job to protect minorities from the majority, no matter who the minority may be.
If we take away their right to protect a specific minority group through a constitutional amendment would be even more of an assault on the rule of law than depriving a group of people of equal rights.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The move to invalidate legal marriages, and why its a load of honky
A recent scheme by the supporters of Proposition 8 has them working to nullify the more than 18,000 marriages that took place between May and November of 2008, when gay marriage was legal.
The problem with this, I believe, is that it gives a middle finger to the U.S. Constitution, because Article 1, Section 10 of the document reads:
I point to the text "ex post facto law" because that's exactly what the Yes on Prop 8 people are trying to do through Mr. Starr's brief. An ex post facto law, according to the Law.com Dictionary, "refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed."
For reference, article nine does the same thing for the Federal government.
Now, look at the whole Proposition 8 controversy in its most basic form:
For five months, people were allowed to do something in accordance with the definition of the law, and 18,000 couples did so. The state even issued papers saying it was recognized. Then, on November 5, voters in the state of California changed the law to make said action illegal. End of story.
But look at it from another perspective:
The state of Nebraska had a law that allowed for the surrender of children at "safe havens," such as a hospital. But there was a loophole in the law that was intended for infants.
People were abandoning teenagers, adolescents, and every kind of child except for infants. As the USA Today article points out, none of the parents abandoning non-infant children would be prosecuted for any reason. Normally, this would have followed with prosecution for child endangerment or abandonment, but due to the Nebraska law no one could do so.
Now, the state has set an age limit. But it doesn't mean the parents who abandoned their children previously will be prosecuted.
Now, move to California. The law was constructed to erase the right. Aside from Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, Proposition 8's text includes nothing about removing can't revoke the rights you gave to people before you changed the law, just like you can't prosecute the parents who dumped their unruly teenagers at safe havens.
Technically, if you look at it, I can give you the reason the Supreme Court would give should they invalidate the proposition - no law can retroactively take rights away and punish those people. Proposition 8, by definition according to briefs filed with the state Supreme Court, was intended to work retroactively.
The amendment is in violation of the U.S. Constitution by this logic. If it only sought to remove the right, it might not have been a violation of the anything. Since it does, the Constitutional footing for the amendment is shaky at best.
The people can err when it comes to regular initiatives and laws, because the Constitutions of both the state and the country are there to correct it. When it comes to erring in a constitutional amendment, the national constitution is there to correct it.
The problem with this, I believe, is that it gives a middle finger to the U.S. Constitution, because Article 1, Section 10 of the document reads:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
I point to the text "ex post facto law" because that's exactly what the Yes on Prop 8 people are trying to do through Mr. Starr's brief. An ex post facto law, according to the Law.com Dictionary, "refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed."
For reference, article nine does the same thing for the Federal government.
Now, look at the whole Proposition 8 controversy in its most basic form:
For five months, people were allowed to do something in accordance with the definition of the law, and 18,000 couples did so. The state even issued papers saying it was recognized. Then, on November 5, voters in the state of California changed the law to make said action illegal. End of story.
But look at it from another perspective:
The state of Nebraska had a law that allowed for the surrender of children at "safe havens," such as a hospital. But there was a loophole in the law that was intended for infants.
People were abandoning teenagers, adolescents, and every kind of child except for infants. As the USA Today article points out, none of the parents abandoning non-infant children would be prosecuted for any reason. Normally, this would have followed with prosecution for child endangerment or abandonment, but due to the Nebraska law no one could do so.
Now, the state has set an age limit. But it doesn't mean the parents who abandoned their children previously will be prosecuted.
Now, move to California. The law was constructed to erase the right. Aside from Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, Proposition 8's text includes nothing about removing can't revoke the rights you gave to people before you changed the law, just like you can't prosecute the parents who dumped their unruly teenagers at safe havens.
Technically, if you look at it, I can give you the reason the Supreme Court would give should they invalidate the proposition - no law can retroactively take rights away and punish those people. Proposition 8, by definition according to briefs filed with the state Supreme Court, was intended to work retroactively.
The amendment is in violation of the U.S. Constitution by this logic. If it only sought to remove the right, it might not have been a violation of the anything. Since it does, the Constitutional footing for the amendment is shaky at best.
The people can err when it comes to regular initiatives and laws, because the Constitutions of both the state and the country are there to correct it. When it comes to erring in a constitutional amendment, the national constitution is there to correct it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)