October 2009 Archives

Every now and again I wonder why I bother with any of the social networking sites. For me they are generally something I use to amuse myself. I have a habit of breaking chops with friends on them, and sometimes it gets me into trouble. I have found them to be good places, however, to debate, and express ideas. I use them as a sort-of playground for the ideas that eventually make it on to this blog. Today someone posted something on one of the sites that ended up triggering a discussion on the concept of free speech. Just when I thought I had no ideas for a blog post, I got fired up.

First let me quote their initial post:

"While driving to Cooperstown this morning, I saw things that made me feel very uneasy. Confederate flags draped over garage doors and signs telling me that if I don't choose Jesus, I am choosing Hell. All I can say right now is what's in between Utica and Cooperstown, frikken should stay in that in between....."

That's a valid thought, and feeling, right?

That comment triggered a flurry of comments beneath it, including some from me, but this was the very first one:

"i've seen the very things you're talking about, and i think a lot of the stuff in between utica and cooperstown should be destroyed."

Destroyed??? Ouch. That seems a little extreme to me, since it would be illegal, and since we have no way of knowing what is truly in the hearts of the people displaying these things. I posted a comment asking questions and giving my opinion of what I believe the concept of Free Speech means, and it ultimately led to this comment by the person who posted the initial message. This is the comment that really got me thinking about this topic.:

"This area in which I drove through today, to me, encompassed hatred and self righteousness. Nothing felt safe or comforting or welcoming and to me, this is not what the dimensions of diversity are about....."

Everyone's right to free speech does not necessarily include you making others, or others making yourself, comfortable. Speech that makes us uncomfortable is necessary. What good is the freedom of speech if people aren't allowed to say things that we don't approve of?

It would be difficult to call myself an absolutist on free speech, because I do believe in some of the limitations on speech as defined by our Supreme Court (that whole shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater, thing), but I am as absolutist as I can be within those confines. I believe in those limitations because unlike some schools of political thought to which I do not subscribe, I do believe in a Greater Good. I also believe that the government has the right to legislate things to the betterment of the Greater Good. What those things are, however, is best left for another blog post.

I believe that people can say and do whatever they want, as long as it falls within the legal definitions of free speech, and I think America is a better place for it. I don't always agree with what people say, but I respect their right to their opinion. There is such a thing as going too far, but as long as people keep it reasonable, and don't start threatening people with guns, we should be celebrating our Constitution for allowing this.

The problem that I ended up having in the online discussion is that people were mistaking my defense of allowing people to hang things like Confederate and Nazi flags on their houses, with being sympathetic toward those causes, whatever they may be. This is disappointing to me because it seems to me that it's the simplest of concepts to understand that agreeing with someone's right to say something, is not the same as agreeing with the points of view, themselves. Make no mistake, the moment that these people overstep their bounds, and start infringing upon the rights of others, I will be there to help stop it.

Some people in this discussion were very opposed to the idea that anyone should ever be allowed to hang something like a Confederate flag on their house and they provided many kinds of arguments as to why. The only problem with this kind of thinking is that people so inclined, can make similarly worded arguments against symbols like the pink triangle, as well.

Beyond the free speech component of this argument, I am wondering if it's a good idea to get so upset because a few people hung potentially objectionable material on their houses. I do not mean to be flippant, but it's a cruel world out there, and you'd better learn to deal with it.

I am wondering if this kind of sensitivity isn't due to this new 'feel-good' ideal that's been taught for a few years now. The idea that everyone gets a prize, no matter how good, or how bad their effort is. I generally cringe at the idea of agreeing with conservatives, but I have to agree with them on this one. Maybe making everyone believe that they are the same in every way, that everyone is entitled to a prize, and that we're all going to live happily ever after, is OK in the very earliest of school grades, but at some point, it seems to me that we would be better off instead preparing people for the realities of the world. Realities like the fact that they might encounter speech and other things that make them uncomfortable, and that might offend them.

I understand what the person who posted the original comment was saying, and feeling. I too want to live in a world without hate, but taking away these people's flags and signs, and outlawing free speech isn't going to achieve that. I prefer to live in a country where people are allowed to express themselves, even if I find their ideas to be grotesque and abhorrent.

After watching all of the health care coverage on television of late, and after having watched television news shows for decades, I am trying to figure out when the age of 'Punditry' arrived.

I seem to recall watching television news when I was a child, and reporters would do their jobs... they would report. I don't recall too much punditry at that time, except for the occasional 'expert' or 'analyst' when a huge event was unfolding, like the murders at the 1972 Winter Olympics, or the Iran Hostage Crisis. Now all that you see on television news shows are analysts and pundits telling you what to think. It's not just limited to television, of course. Daytime radio is filled with political pundits regurgitating the week's events with their own added spin, as well.

What bothers me most about this, is that people are surrendering their ability to think for themselves, to the talking heads. Why would anyone do that? I appreciate the fact that I was taught to think for myself, and value my right to free speech. I enjoy expressing myself while debating with others, and have no interest in doing anything other than forming my own opinions based on the facts at hand. If I'm out of my league, then I default to my guru of choice, but only after finding ones who are what my friend David would call Expert Practitioners.

But perhaps people are not actually surrendering their ability to think for themselves. It seems as though people are no longer being taught decision-making, and critical thinking skills, so their only choice is to let other people do their thinking for them. This is a frightening concept, because if people can no longer think clearly, for themselves, what hope for Democracy is there?

The following is one of my favorite quotations on this topic. I think it perfectly expresses what I am feeling right now:

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments."

  --Noam Chomsky

Steve Morse has been my favorite guitarist for many years, now. I was first introduced the brilliance of Steve's playing and writing in the early eighties, while he was in his band called The Dixie Dregs. He is a truly rare talent who combines world class technical virtuosity as a player, with amazing depth as a composer. Since then, the Dixie Dregs have all but retired, with the occasional short concert tour, but Steve continues playing and writing in his solo band.

Yesterday's concert at Buffalo's Tralf Music Hall is probably the tenth or twelfth time that I have seen Steve play. Most of those performances were with his Steve Morse Band trio, but I have also seen him solo, opening up for the T. Lavitz band, with the Dixie Dregs, and with the band Kansas.

Last night's show was very typical of most concerts. Steve mixed some older classic tunes from the Dregs, with a variety of his Steve Morse Band material, and he also played four or five tunes from his new, soon-to-be-released SMB album, called Out Standing In Their Field.

If I'm being honest, I will tell you that I haven't liked the last two or three SMB releases. Steve's compositions are normally complex, and layered, with strong counterpoint, but on the more recent releases, he's chosen to go down a very boring rock-and-roll road. After hearing the tracks from the new record, however, it sounds as if Steve is writing material that is more similar to the stuff of old; the stuff that I really like. The great news at yesterday's show, was that he was selling pre-release copies of the new CD, and he made himself available after the show for autographs.

This was also the first time that I've gotten to see him play, since he's had his own signature guitar amplifier, made by Engl. For years Steve played through a Marshall Jubilee amplifier, and he always had good tone, but this new Engl is a screamer.  It sounded incredible.

Also appearing with Steve last night were bassist Dave LaRue, and drummer Van Romaine. It should come as no surprise to you that a player like Steve surrounds himself with the best players that he can find, and these two guys are no exception. Together, the three of them make up one of the most powerful trios of all time, and I highly recommend seeing them if they ever play near your neck of the woods. If you enjoy interesting and complex music that rocks, you won't be disappointed.

Here is a likely incomplete and possibly inaccurate set-list from last night's show. I wrote down all of the songs whose titles I could remember, and did the best I could with the material from the new CD:

• On The Pipe  (SMB, The Introduction)
• Highland Wedding  (SMB, High Tension Wires)
• Refried Funky Chicken  (Dixie Dregs, Night Of The Living Dregs)
• Vista Grande  (SMB, Southern Steel)
• Night Meets Light  (Dixie Dregs, What If)
• Here And Now And Then  (SMB, Out Standing In Their Field)
• Up In The Air  (Dixie Dregs, Industry Standard)
• Baroque'N Dreams  (SMB, Out Standing In Their Field)
• Little Kids  (Dixie Dregs, What If)
• Sleaze Factor  (SMB, Southern Steel)
• Name Dropping  (SMB, Out Standing In Their Field)
• Relentless Encroachment  (SMB, Out Standing In Their Field)
• John Deere Letter  (SMB, Out Standing In Their Field)
• Cruise Missile  (SMB, The Introduction)

Encore

• Van Romaine Drum Solo
• Cruise Control  (The Dregs, Unsung Heroes version)

Because I still have a lot of time on my hands, I decided to catch up on another one of the pay-TV shows that I don't get to see first run, since I do not have any of the pay channels. This show has been getting a lot of hype in various media circles, so I thought that it might be time. The first series that I did this with was the Sopranos, then Rome, then Sex And The City, and now, the Showtime series Californication.

Odd as this may seem, this is my first real exposure to David Duchovny.  I never watched the X-Files, nor have I seen any of the X-Files films. From what I have read, this series is also loosely based on Duchovny's life as a sex addict. I have only watched the first season, and they are currently airing the third, so I have not quite seen half of the episodes.

David Duchovny stars as Hank Moody, a sex-addicted New York writer transplanted in Hollywood. Once upon a time Hank was in a relationship with Karen, played by Natascha McElhone. Hank and Karen never married, had one child together, split up, and now Karen is engaged to another man and Hank is trying to piece his life back together, after the split. He is a successful, published author, and his most recent work was actually the basis for a Hollywood film.

Hank's agent, Charlie, played by Evan Handler (Sex And The City) puts up with Hank's foibles because they are good friends, and because he knows that Hank is capable of producing brilliant work, and hopes to steer him back in that direction.

I find Duchovny's Hank character to be very likable, and I can actually relate to him on some levels. What's most fascinating for me, is that he's a walking contradiction in so many areas of his life. Despite the fact that he sleeps around with nameless women, he's strangely moral, and is really a one woman man. The exact circumstances of his breakup with Karen are still a bit of a mystery, but it's made clear that Karen cheated on him, not the other way around, as one might expect based on all of his sexual and self destructive proclivities. Hank also makes it very clear that he still loves Karen deeply, and wants nothing more than to get back together with her.

Karen however, seems to be moving on. She's become engaged to a successful businessman widower named Bill, who also has a sixteen year old daughter named Mia.

For all of Hank's faults, he is a good father, and Karen recognizes and appreciates this. While for obvious reasons, Hank doesn't like Karen's fiance, Bill, very much, he is often around Bill and Karen's house doing his shared-custody parental duties of dropping off and picked up his daughter. As you might imagine, this leads to a lot of tension and drama between all of the main players.

So far I have enjoyed the show very much but I do find it to be occasionally predictable, and I am having trouble overlooking something that I see as a giant plot hole. Toward the end of the season, an interesting plot-line develops around Hank having finally written a new novel. He wrote it on an old-fashioned typewriter (yeah, I know) while back in New York for his father's funeral, and only has the one copy. He ends up losing the manuscript, but is surprised one day when he learns that someone else is pitching it to his agent. I am finding it unlikely that anyone would believe that the person who is claiming to have written the manuscript, actually wrote it, and that the people nearest and dearest to Hank wouldn't have recognized it as his work, immediately.

Despite these minor criticisms I think the show is strong, and am looking forward to seeing the second season. Hopefully it will only get better.

I first saw this video clip a few months ago when someone either mass-emailed me the link, or posted a link to it on Facebook. I hadn't thought about it in months, but then yesterday, someone linked to it again, so I watched it again. Perhaps you should watch it before you read on. I would have embedded it, but embedding is turned off, and I don't like embedded video on blogs, anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

The topic of happiness is something that my friends and I talk about all of the time. I think everyone wants to be happy, but the classic conundrum has always been actually finding it. Some people that I know are certainly well on their way to finding it, and others are working hard at it. For myself, I think that it's a journey, and that I have much work to do in this area.

The speaker in this video posits that everything is amazing and yet no one is happy. From where I sit, that tells me that perhaps amazing things don't make most people happy. In my limited experience, the things that I have found that make people happy are very basic things like human contact, meaningful endeavors, and love. The guy in the video doesn't talk about anything of those things, but instead, he talks only of things technological. Is technology supposed to be the key to happiness? At the simplest level, how is a computer or an airplane any different than a hammer? Are hammers supposed to make us happy, too? Amazement does not necessarily equal happiness, which is why there are separate words for each. There are certainly things which are amazing, that make me happy, but there are probably just as many things that are amazing, that are not so easy to be happy about.

What is most disappointing to me is that people haven't figured this out yet. They keep buying the latest MP3 player or automobile, in their search for contentment and happiness, only to have to continue to keep buying things, because that 'void' hasn't been filled yet. The expression 'money can't buy happiness' has been around for a very long time, and these objects are really no different than money, yet people continue to consume, unfulfilled.

I have a friend who fairly recently quit her job as an engineer, sold her house, and moved herself, her dog, and her guns to Montana, to be around like-minded people. A large part of her decision was based on her personal politics. As a Libertarian she wanted to be in a place where she fit in, but she also got tired of trying to be what people expected, and wanted to be less fettered by the rat race. I don't always agree with her political beliefs, but I envy her decision to remove herself from the rat-race in an attempt to be more happy.

I am very fortunate because I hang around with a remarkable cross section of people, and there are basically two schools of thought on this, as is apparently the case with most things. There is my family, most of whom belong(ed) to the blue-collar, 'you have to work the same job every day, twelve hours a day for forty years, like everyone else, or else you're lazy!' group, and then there is the more 'artistic' group of friends who understand, appreciate, and envy her choice. I think Mr. Spock would understand her choice, as well. If you've seen the classic Trek episode, 'The Way To Eden' you will know what I am talking about.

Have we become so unintrospective that we are no longer capable of seeing these truths, no matter how much evidence is under our very nose, or is the powerful Wall Street message-of-consumption subsuming us, despite what we know to be true, and to be good for us?

When I went to last night's showing of 'The Cove' at MWPAI, I knew that the I was going to witness horrific scenes of dolphins being killed, but I had no idea how one of the people in the film would be connected to my childhood and perhaps yours, as well as how this film would be connected to a previous post that I wrote on this blog.

The film is centered around Ric O'Barry, and his passionate mission to insure that dolphins are no longer subject to captivity, and hunting. At first I didn't quite understand why Mr. O'Barry was so passionate on this subject, but it became clear as I watched the film. In short, Mr. O'Barry is partly (if not largely) responsible for the world's fascination with these amazing creatures. After he left the Navy in the early 1960's, he was hired as a Dolphin trainer at the Miami Seaquarium. He was then hired to capture and train Dolphins to be used on the Flipper television show, which debuted on the NBC television network in 1964. If you are of my generation, you surely have seen and enjoyed the show.

At the time, he recognized the extraordinary intelligence that Dolphins possessed, but as he admits in the film, the lure of money and 'a new Porsche every year' was hard to deny for a young man. The event that turned him from Dolphin-trainer-for-hire, to Dolphin protector and activist, was when one of the Bottlenose Dolphins that portrayed Flipper, named Kathy, swam into his arms, and he believes, committed suicide. He supports this claim with the widely acknowledged fact that Dolphins (and indeed all Cetaceans) are voluntary air-breathers, and unlike humans, and many other land-dwelling mammals, have the ability to choose when they take a breath, or when they do not. According to O'Barry, after weeks of showing signs of depression, Kathy swam into his arms, opened her blowhole to take a breath, and then never took another. The very next day, activist O'Barry was arrested for freeing a dolphin from captivity near Bimini.

Much of the film takes place in a Japanese city called Taiji where there is a yearly hunt in which Dolphins are 'herded' into a cove whereupon some are sold to aquariums from around the world, and the rest are killed for their meat. The goal of the people in this film was to be able to get the slaughter on film, and in so doing, created a documentary that is unlike any documentary I have ever seen.

The cove where the slaughter takes place is actually part of a local park, that has been fenced off so that no one can see what takes place there. Anyone who is not a part of the Taiji fishing crew is not allowed in the cove. O'Barry and company had many problems to overcome to be able to secretly film in the cove, including camouflaging Hi-Def cameras to look like rocks, locating them in and around the cove without being caught, positioning underwater microphones, and building a radio-controlled helicopter to attempt to get aerial footage. Doing all of these things required recruiting people with talents as wildly varied as Hollywood special-effects artists, and world-class Freedivers. The scenes where the team sneaked into the cove under the cover of darkness were as tense as any drama I have seen.

The footage that they shot was as horrific and disturbing as I had imagined, and everyone should see it. Sadly, however, this was one of the more poorly attended films that I have seen in a while, and I suspect it's precisely because people did not want to see it. I can only hope that this film will change things.

As a vegetarian, I obviously oppose the killing of animals for food, but I would think that any reasonable person would oppose the captivity and slaughter of a life form that is likely sentient. In addition to that, Dolphin meat is among the most highly toxic meats on the planet due to very high Mercury levels, so it's simply not a good food source.

In the film, Mr. O'Barry spoke about why captivity is so stressful for Dolphins. I had never really thought that deeply about it before, but as an Audio Engineer, once he made his point, it was like being hit by a hammer. Dolphins are acoustic creatures that evolved in the oceans and use a highly-sensitive and sophisticated natural Sonar array to help them navigate. You know... the incredibly huge oceans that aren't bounded by concrete walls? Now imagine being a creature that uses Sonar, and being forced to live in what must seem like a minuscule concrete cage. When a dolphin uses its Sonar in such a confined space with such reflective surfaces, it must be awful. I can only imagine that due to that, confinement for Dolphins must be hellish. I can relate to this because even as a human without a Sonar array, doing audio work (recording, mixing, mastering) in small rooms with reflective parallel walls creates great difficulties.

In my first paragraph I alluded to a connection between this film and a previous post on this blog. If you're a regular reader you will no doubt remember my review of the Animal Planet television series called Whale Wars. Captain Paul Watson of the 'Steve Irwin' was quoted several times in this film, and they also used footage from 'Whale Wars' depicting Japanese whaling. It should come as no surprise to you that the governing body that oversees Japanese whaling, also oversees the capture and slaughter of Dolphins. It's amazing how things sometimes come full circle.

 The Cove's Official Web site

 The Cove At The IMDB

 Ric O'Barry's Dolphin Project Web Site

I'm almost tired of talking about health care at this point, but now seems to be shaping up as the most crucial point to be involved. Conservative forces opposed to a Public Option seem to be losing some momentum, and progressive forces seem to be applying lots of pressure. This is all fantastic, but I'm still having trouble even understanding how anyone could argue against some sort of strong Public Option, in the first place. If I've said it once, I've said it one hundred times: I'm still waiting to hear a single convincing argument against a Public Option.

The saddest part of this whole debate is just how strong the propaganda against a Public Option really is. I was chatting with a friend the other day, and he was telling me how his young daughter had broken her wrist, and when all was said and done he expected that he was going to have to pay about $3000 out of pocket to cover all of the medical expenses, because he doesn't have health care, and his daughter is no longer eligible for that state's child health insurance program. Astonishingly, not sixty seconds later, when I mentioned having some sort of Public Option, he immediately regurgitated one of the many lies that the right-wing is spreading on behalf of the private insurance companies. How is it possible that you could argue against your own self interests in that way? I just don't get it. He had just gotten through complaining to me about having to pay $3000, of money that he doesn't have, to take care of the medical expenses. Ay carumba.

This reminds of a time in the eighties, when Reagan had been redistributing the wealth to the richest elites with his massive tax cuts for the wealthy. In general, capitalists seemed to get more greedy, and capitalism started to be practiced in a much more mercenary manner. Corporations began to bust unions, lower wages, reduce benefits, and lay people off. I remember hearing talk at family functions from many people who had union jobs about how good it was that this was happening, while repeating the corporate mantra as evidence. You know, those vague slogans like, "We need to make America more competitive!" Just exactly how is America "more competitive" now that they have moved all of our manufacturing over seas, and we've become an economically crippled nation of unemployed people?

That people believe in these Orwellian slogans, illogic and lies really does drive me crazy. The frustration is such that were I actually beating my head against the wall, I would have real problems since I am one of the millions who currently does not have health care.

It's amazing how easy it is to stray from the fundamentals of any sport or activity, and it's amazing how important they actually are. I have definitely found this to be the case in billiards, but it's amazing how important 'fundies' are to pottery making, as well.

In my most recent class I was having trouble centering and opening the clay. This is a skill that I thought I had sufficiently mastered in my first semester, yet now in my third, I was struggling. I asked my instructor for help and she noticed that I wasn't sitting close enough to the wheel, and that my left elbow wasn't properly anchored against my body. I don't know exactly when my form started to slip so badly, but it probably happened over time.

When working clay, you need to be close to the wheel so that your head is centered over the clay as you are working it. It all makes perfect sense. My left elbow also needed to be locked in against my hip bone so that I could properly apply controlled pressure when centering the clay.

It's good to have an instructor around to keep reinforcing these most basic of fundamentals, because apparently it's very easy to get lazy, and start ignoring them. Hopefully next week my form will be a bit better so that I can get back to actually making things.

For me, Winter begins today because the NY Mets did not make the playoffs, and in a word, the 2009 season for the Mets, sucked. In my entire life I have never seen a team suffer as many injuries as the Mets did, this season. If you were going to script a bad season for a team, and had to pick the four most important players to go down, it would have been the four that actually did go down for part of, or most of the season. In addition to the four major injuries, the Mets almost seemed to be cursed with little fluke injuries as well. For example one day when Luis Castillo was walking into the dugout after being on the field, he tripped on the stairs and twisted his ankle. A minor injury to be sure, and he was back in a few days, but very emblematic of the kind of season the Mets were having.

Despite the terrible season, there were plenty of things to be positive about, as well. Due to all of the injuries, the Mets ended up having to bring up lots of guys from their farm-system, to fill those holes. We got to see their super-prospect Fernando Martinez, and when they expanded the rosters in September, a talented young catching prospect named Josh Thole. One interesting little factoid about Josh is that he was actually born the day after the Mets won the World Series in 1986. For the record, that little factoid makes me feel old!

The injuries also meant that many veterans like Gary Sheffield and Nelson Figueroa got second chances, and took full advantage of them. While not a veteran, Daniel Murphy, who was expected to play left field all season, ended up filling in at first base brilliantly after he did not perform well in outfield.  The Mets also made a quick trade to acquire Jeff Francoeur from the Atlanta Braves. This was one of those classic 'change-of-venue' trades where each player traded hadn't been fitting in on their team, and management has hoped new venues would benefit both players. From the looks of it so far, the Mets got the best of the deal, and I expect Jeff Francoeur to be patrolling right field for a long time. Also, veteran backup shortstop Alex Cora showed us just how tough he was playing for months with a torn ligament in each thumb.

The Mets front office definitely has some work to do in the off-season, but I believe that Mets fans have much to look forward to next season, and I fully expect that they will reach the playoffs. After all, how can they not? Karma owes them an injury-free season.   :-)

I have been thinking a lot in the last twelve hours about Rep. Alan Grayson (D, Fla), his use of the word 'holocaust' on the floor of the US House of Representatives, and Rachel Maddow's having called him to task about it on her program.

I consider myself to be an absolutist on free speech. I believe that free speech allows us to pick and choose from the lexicon of words to achieve the kind of subtlety, lack thereof, or nuance that we want. However, living in a free society also means that others are free to criticize you for your choices, and I recognize that.

Many people, including the Republicans and Rachel Maddow have taken issue with Rep. Grayson for having used the word 'holocaust' to describe the plight of those who have died in this country due to lack of access to health care. I myself initially used the word 'regrettable' to describe his choice of words, but the more I think about it, the less I agree with that point of view. After seeing both the video footage of him in The House, and after seeing him on television interviews afterward, I believe that he was describing a holocaust, not The Holocaust.

Yes, in some ways using that word was regrettable, because it allowed the Republican opposition to briefly attempt to occupy the moral high-ground in their criticisms of him and its usage. Sadly, however, the health-care debate really has no moral high-ground because Democrats and Republicans have allowed this issue to fester, unresolved for decades.

The word 'holocaust' has been around for a long time, and my brief research shows that over the centuries it has had many meanings, including but not limited to the Nazi slaughter of twelve million people in the 1940's. So why is it no longer OK to use it?

After reading the definitions from various online and print dictionaries, it's clear to me that large losses of life, either intentional or otherwise can be, and have been referred to as 'holocausts' in the past. It's clear that lots of people die every year in the United States (and around the world) from having no access to health care, and it's also clear that it's preventable. So why then should Rep. Grayson's usage be criticized? It seems to me that when large groups of people die needlessly, it is a holocaust.

For this criticism of Rep. Grayson to be valid I think there would have to be proof that his use of the word was either meant to be reckless, or irresponsible. From the evidence that I have seen, I don't think either is true. Yes, he was excited and spoke very passionately on the House Floor. Yes, he was very probably angry over the Republicans doing everything they can to block the passage of a Public Option, but I do not fault him for his anger. I would be (and am) angry also. Do I think he went to far? Yesterday, I probably did, but today I no longer do.

Let us contrast that with the people who were carrying around photos and signs of Obama saying that he was a Nazi. From what I have seen, there is no evidence to support any of those allegations, so those posters and signs were used recklessly and irresponsibly, and what Rep. Grayson did does not compare on any level.

You are of course free to draw your own conclusions, but I for one was very excited to see someone speaking plainly, and passionately on the floor of The House. We've been subject to Orwellian Double-Speak from most of these politicos for decades, and yesterday, Rep. Grayson challenged that paradigm.

I get several audio magazines in the mail, and one of them occasionally writes about other technologies that could affect electronic music production. Last year they wrote about more efficient solar cells that were less costly to produce, and in the latest issue they're talking about Holographic Disc Storage.

It seems the engineers over at General Electric's research and development laboratory have developed a polycarbonate material that when produced in the size of a CD/DVD/BR disc, can hold many times the amount of data of even a BR disc.

Right now, the engineers have a prototype that is capable of storing 500 gigabytes of data, and as they improve the polycarbonate material, and refine the technology in general, they expect to be able to get one terabyte of data onto a CD/DVD/BR sized disc.

Obviously a technology like this has implications for everyone who has use for storing and archiving massive amounts of data. This applies to music production because digital audio requires massive amounts of storage, particularly if you're recording at higher sample rates like 192 KHz.

First generation commercial devices are expected to be available by 2012.