FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:18 PM) Sonic Who?? Yoots.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) Here is my question for you: How do you make the bridge between the legally accepted definition of government promotion of welfare, and the funding of the arts? My answer to your question as to how I can stretch the promise of promoting general welfare to include federal programs sponsoring the arts and art education is that, quite simply, I do not see it as any stretch at all. If you accept that funding education is part of the Constitutional mandate for the promotional of American welfare, then unless you are prepared to capriciously decide what disciplines receive funding then you already tacitly accept that humanities education is going to be funded - along with the "Three Rs," science and technology education, and education in history and the social sciences. If, on the other hand, you are willing to single out the humanities as ineligible for federal funding then our dialogue is at an impasse. I suspect, however, that you respect the value of a broad educational experience steeped in liberal arts and humanities that complement other core curriculum elements. I submit that the need for educational reform in this country is so broadly recognized that it is practically a meme. Again, I offer a considered opinion that federal funding for the arts and art education, through the National Endowment for the Arts and other entities, has been a hugely successful component of these sorely needed reforms. These entities provide powerful and inspiring art education experiences beyond that of the basic class curriculum, through teacher professional development fellowships, "Urban Gateway" visiting artist programs, etc. I hope to explore these programs further as part of my closing statements. Now, another question for you, within the now narrowed topic of whether federal money should be used to fund the arts (I believe this is where our opinions differ the most, while we differ less so in terms of state and local expenditures in support of the arts): You have come down on the "no" side of the debate. And you have provided reasoned grounds for your opinions. But are you also willing to argue for an end to federal spending on the many art education, curatorial, research, and conservation programs and initiatives of entities such as the Smithsonian Institution? Who is going to fund the SAMM (Smithsonian American Art Museum, America's first federal art collection) if the government will not? Who is going to fund the Renwick (home of three centuries of American crafts and decorative arts) if the government will not? Who would have been the archivist for uniquely American folk music for the last 50 years if not for the federal funding of Smithsonian Folkways Recordings (the nonprofit record label of the Smithsonian)? I could go on, but I believe you get the point I am trying to convey.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 03:55 PM) OK, Flaxx, just to make sure we are clear on what comes next... I will respond to your response (above) to my first question in a little bit. You also need to respond to my response to your question. After both are done, we can then each ask a new question. Is that right? Or am I off-track somehow? No, that sounds right to me. If not, I'm sure the judges will dock us appropriately.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) I agree it's a great album, but I wouldn't call it classic 'rock'. That's a valid point, and it is why I refined it as a pop masterpiece rather than rock. But, given the latitude of the original list with the inclusion of Blonde on Blonde, I think Tapestry warrants inclusion. Plus, songs like I Feel the Earth Move and Smackwater Jack are rocking little numbers, even if some other songs take a softer approach. Also, I may be looking for an appropriate album on which to place the lifetiime achievement award. Though Tapestry itself may defy descrioption, the Goffin/King compositions penned in the Brill Building through the 60s fairly defined the rock and roll genre.

I take it your response to my questions about the role of the federal government in education are forthcoming. My response to you is going to hinge on where in the Constitution you see the federal responsibility for guaranteeing access to education as deriving from. It again remains conspicuously absent from your list of items to be considered under the "promotion of general welfare." On that point, I'd like to make sure we do not lose that important modifier. The Constitution is nominally considered with promoting the general welfare of the American citizenry. By definition and by design this allows for interpretation, much to the dismay of the so-called constitutional constructionists and 'originalists.' I'm not sure I've seen the "legally accepted definition" of welfare to which you refer. The Random House dictionary definition I used as my roadmap is that welfare is the 'good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group. Webster's online offering is essentially identical ("the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"). Federal subsidies to the arts and to art education/outreach can be seen as promoting the happiness and general well-being of program targets without any sort of stretch whatsoever. I only gravitated to the "legal node" of constitutionally promoted welfare since it was an avenue explored in your initial statements and thus seems to be an appropriate springboard for this discussion. I cannot further my intended line of reasoning until I know where you stand on the federal role in funding education, however.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) and why don't you mind your own business? I'm asking what I think is a serious question. Kap, I think Jackie's query as to what the "simplest and most obvious explanation" is completely on point. It is the heart of the Occam's Razor approach to logic. One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. More succinctly, the simplest explanation is usually the most correct explanation. If the administration is not "up to something" in the domestic spying fiasco, then their best recourse would be to directly explain WHY the FISA protocol already in place was insufficiant. Marely saying it is "too cumbersome" is no explanation, because putting hundreds of FBI agents on more than a thousand blind leads each month as a result of the NSA information gathered is about as cumbersome and unwieldy as it gets. FISA would have let them get warrants after the fact. FISA allows for precisely the type of surveilance the administration has copped to. FISA protects the Judicial checks on the Executive. FISA is amenable to Congressional overhaul if the administration had tried to persuade Congress that such was needed in a post-9/11 world. Until the administration directly responds to the question of where exactly FISA fell short, the simplest and most obvious explanation is that they are "up to no something." Your turn, Kap. Tell me why the administration refuses to explain why it had to bypass the courts. Also, if you believe the AUMF granted some or all of the authority to request the spying, how can you believe that this was the intent of Congress when we know full well that Congress refused to grant the president these very powers just days earlier when the administration tried to slip last minute language in.

IF Pixar retains 100% creative control, then I can live with the move. But color me skeptical at this point.

It took the morning radio to jump start my brain to add a seminal album to the top 10 most important rock albums. Carole King's Tapestry. Possibly the closest thing to a perfect pop album. A huge musical talent at the top of her game, given the freedom to make her masterpiece. So far Away still chokes me up every single time I hear it.

I said I wouldn't peer into this thread during the current debate, but I did sneek a peak at Tex' opening statement. It sounds like "Piss Christ" is a perfect poster child for the federally subsidized art of questionable value you are referring to. Once the current debate round is over I'd enjoy sharing my thoughts on why that art piece and other controversial pieces are of value to society, even if they are not your cup of tea or mine.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:15 AM) He should have just called it defict reduction and said in order to fulfill the reductions that everyone are saying we need to do, that everyone needs to sacrfice. Well, we could lose the talk about making his tax cuts permanent for a start and spread the sacrifice around a bit.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) So the next question becomes, is it in our countries best interest to have a healthy population? History shows societies that fell because of the plague and other maladies. We need some level of public health to save ourselves. We are packed into cities and towns where infectious desease could spread rapidly. It would seem to be in our self interest to want people healthy. You think? I agree, it seems logical enough. Proactive healthcare costs 1/5 to 1/10 of what reactive healthcare costs. But it is perfectly clear we're not really serious about ever moving to a federally guaranteed proactive model.

A nation of TV zonbies lapping up sensationalist Long Island Lolita crap my be symptomatic of the problems of the nation. But for a true American analogy to the fatal flaws of empire, look no further than the blatant disregard for checks and balances and the rule of law in this administrations consolidation of power in the "unitary executive." A doctrine that favors and openly pushes for nearly unlimited executive power is, imo, more emblematic of an empire ripe for a fall than the fact that 90% of the public are vapid TV zombies. I hope my comment is not enough to get your thread filibusted, Eye. If so, my apologies. (I like the exclamatory "FILIBUSTED!" btw.)

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) And laws passed by Congress do NOT supercede the Constitution. Here's where the former snarky Flaxx of old would say, Yes, only the president can supercede the Constitution. Instead, I'll just add to what Rex said about there being no readily acceptible reason for sidestepping the FISA protocol that was specifically set up to deal with this kind of issue. Atrios very eloquently says as much, alluding to Occam's Razor by stating the point that every single one of us are really thinking: As to how bad the "no good" they're up to, nobody out of the loop can say yet. It can range from not wanting to be bothered with paperwork (unlikely), to trying to use a post-9/11 justification for a pre-9/11 policy, to the fact that they may have actually been using the illegal program to mine for names to submit to the FISA courts in seeking warrants in other cases, to things we haven't even begun to touch on. Regardless of the specifics, the actions are a premier example of the disdain this administration has for the rule of law and for any and all checks on executive power. There is another thread up now along the lines of, "this is why Rome fell." This thread, however, speaks more clearly to the cautionary tale that too many paople refuse to heed.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) only if the future of Wal-Mart includes hiring 30,000 former Ford employees.... Who does this smartass belong to?

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) And I don't have a problem with that. What do they tell you to do when you're in a car accident? Say nothing! Admit no fault! That's all the hospital is doing. Balta was talking about her wanting her own records. He didn't say anything about other patients' records. I don't disagree, but hanging their hat entirely on patient privacy is a bit disingenuous imo.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:48 AM) Did nobody read the last line: She shouldn't have free reign of other people's records. Yes, she should be able to see her own record, but not other patients without a court order. Balta said as much - that there has to be protection of other patients' privacy and sometimes a lawsuit is required to force hospital compliance with the request. But that said, I don't see how the hospital answering the general question of whether some other patient(s) had streptococcus without revealing any identifying information about the other patient(s). At its heart, this seems like the hospital playing it very carefully so as not to open themselves up to more culpability than they are already facing.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:25 AM) Don't bet it. Back it up. You made that totally ridiculous comparison of a week's worth of Limbaugh vs. a single evening network newscast and I pointed out what a farce that comparison was. You asked who was more mainstream. I gave you my answer. I'm thinking that since Rex is the radio guy he probably has an idea how the ratings books work even if you and I don't. I agree, YAS, on face it seems like an apples/oranges comparison. But I think when radio ratings talk about a listenership, that takes more into account than the ratings for a single television broadcast.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:17 AM) There hasn't been a case of a court gone wild, this is an Administration who has said - we aren't following the law, we aren't going to follow the law. And somehow this is seen as legal. Well, when you have the Justice Department in your pocket, it seems just about anything can be seen as legal if squint and look just right.

I'm not sure this is going to hold up under scrutiny. Well, the authorzation part, yes. But there is some evidence suggesting that Hayden was central to crafting the policy and setting it in motion in at least a limited fashion even before 9-11. 9-11 provided the excuse for authorizing domestic surveilance that the neocon run government wanted to have in its arsenal even before then.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 02:34 AM) it is true what they say about zappa fans... That we tend to be rabidly fanatical about the man? Guilty.

Belated congratulations, Bro! Not nearly as belated as your actually getting around to popping the question though. . .

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:53 PM) Christine Frka (didn't know this off the top of my head though, google helped me) She was a baby sitter for Zappa's kids. http://www.arf.ru/Notes/Hrats/intro1.html Yep. She was also "Miss Christine" of the infamous FZ-produced all-girl band the GTOs ("Girls Together Outrageously"). Most of them were L.A. groupies, but Christine was supposed to be very nice. Sadly, she died of a heroin overdose very young.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) And, s***, with the conversion from Celsius, it's just got be damn hot down there. Yes, everybody is being baked alive down under.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) Hot Rats is all I need. Some brilliant Beefhart on that baby. And Sugarcane Harris can play a badass blues violin too. Trivia: do you know who the girl on the cover peering out of the crypt is?

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:33 PM) does anybody know somebody with the entire zappa collection? I have a friend with everything the fall ever released and thats not even comparable to zappas output...well, to be fair theyve had about 10 less years I am about as close to a Zappa completist as anybody I know. I have everything officially released during his lifetime up to and including Yellow Shark, and also Civilization (Phase III) put out just after his death. There are a few things that have come out recently that I have not picked up including an album along the lines of Guitar and Shut Up and Play... called Frank Zappa playes the music of Frank Zappa. I believe all of the solos included were selected by Dweezil. There are also a few from the vault releases that have come out recently that I will get as soon as funds permit. Including the official releases, the boots, the legal "Beat the Boots," I have easily 100 Zappa titles.