Copyright © 2008 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2008 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings.
Email: |
New Obama Campaign Slogan: "Aren't you glad it's me and not John Edwards?" Oh man, Edwards was my second choice after Dodd. I don't look at this from the angle of inconsistency, but I really feel like we dodged a bullet here. Can you imagine? The Edwards campaign had those great videos showing how he was being shortchanged for attention: that video of Frank Luntz's panel saying they'd thought that Edwards won the debate, contrasted with repeated headlines of it being a race between Clinton and Obama. Imagine if that appeal had worked, and he'd gotten the press to pay more attention to him. It doesn't make me like his programs and ideas any less, but what. a. ticking. time. bomb. We would be up one very rank creek.
You would think that Bob Dylan didn't write that many songs. So I decided to create a playlist on my iPod of Bob Dylan songs sung by others. And before reaching out for additional music I realized I had about a hundred Dylan convers on my iPod. Reasonable playlist material, you would think? Well, here's the drill: a chunk of the tunes have been redone and redone and redone, making for a fairly repetitive list. It's not like there isn't diversity when selections are made, but a few songs get recorded multiple times, and it's worth pruning. Especially since shuffle play isn't completely random, and you might hear two versions of a tune in a row. Here's where I am: the playlist now has 125 recordings (I downloaded some more to increase the diversity). Among those 125 recordings, 23 songs were recorded at least twice, and together they account for half of the playlist.
Beyond the multiples I have 62 recordings which are unique choices. And the count is probably inflated due to dedicated projects like the Bob-fest at Madison Square Garden, Steve Howe's "Portraits of Bob Dylan," and such. So are there any "off the beaten path" Dylan covers I think you should check out? Sure. Here are some, in no order...
Notice I didn't say these were the best of all time, just worth more notice than they've gotten. Among them I like the BS&T best. Are there some songs I think deserve more attention from the artists? Yeah, like "Hazel," and "Postively 4th Street," and "Forever Young." And though I forget the name of the song, there's one on Planet Waves which has the greatest opening line, "Twilight on a frozen lake, a north wind about to break..." UPDATE: Jack "no relation" Lynch's take is here.
Another way to kill the electric car. Or, to deliver it still-born, maybe? Electric cars have zero emissions and cost far less to drive; they tried them in California, but a variety of parties helped ensure they wouldn't survive. The auto manufacturers only made them under a regulatory requirement, the state regulatory board watered down its requirements, the manufacturers marketed them like a poison pill, and the vast majority of the public didn't understand that it would meet their daily needs. (Rent "Who Killed The Electric Car?") That was a decade ago. Cut to now: the governor of Kentucky has signed an executive order approving the use of electric cars on Kentucky roads! Yippee! Catch: they will only be allowed on roads with a speed limit of 45 MPH or less. Now THAT'S a way to make a buyer feel as if the electric car can only be an auxiliary vehicle. Tell them they can't drive it to work, and they'll only see it as being for a very local trip to the grocery store. It's not like electric cars can't go faster than 45; the cars highlighted in "Who Killed The Elecric Car?" not only could do 60, but their acceleration to it was excellent. And even if 45 was their top speed (which would make the vehicle pointless), haven't we all seen highway signs declaring a minimum speed of 40? Wouldn't an electric car be able to meet the legal requirement? OK, so here's the reason for the short-sightedness: the governor wants a manufacturing plant in the state for a specific car that can't do more than 45. It's all about jobs, and making the economic climate fine for one. specific. car. So it's damn the genuine benefit; only allow the meager promise that one manufacturer can deliver, do not allow superior products to flourish. Must not "really" allow electric cars. (Here's a bit of my ignorance on full display... If you've seen the Amish on a road in one of their horse-drawn carriages, you've noticed the red triangle on the back. There are probably limits to the roads they can use, but what if the faster electric cars had those red triangles on their rear ends?)
How solid was the case against Bruce Ivins? Apparently the grand jury still had weeks' more testimony to hear, but not anything to put Ivins where the letters were mailed from:
In the context of everything else that might not matter, unless Ivins had an alibi. But would an alibi have ruled him out for investigators, given other stumbles mentioned in the article? (I don't find it particularly damning that the envelopes which were used were available in his post office, given they were available at other post offices, too, and others patronized those post offices, too.)
Is the anthrax case really closed? Some support the conclusion ("inference") of guilt, even though there could be many reasons a suspect might kill themselves. For instance, it takes years (and lots of money) to clear yourself (cf. Richard Jewell, Stephen Hatfill), and along the way your employment prospects can get pretty dim. I'm not saying suicide is the smart choice, but if you presume suicide is not the smart choice, who wants to presume that Bruce Ivins was smart and/or rational? And if he wasn't smart or rational, why should we presume that guilt was what drove him to suicide? Kind of a circular argument, I know; Ivins wouldn't the first to kill himself in fear of prosecution (cf. Donald Manes, for one). I would hope that, at bare minimum, the Feds had evidence that Ivins was in Trenton the day those letters were mailed — or had no alibi, at least. But as has been reported, we'll likely never know the extent of the evidence against him, it all being sealed in grand jury files. Even if he was guilty, though, the case is not "closed," not with a sense of closure, anyway. Motive remains speculative: was he trying to provoke war with Iraq? heighten awareness of the need to protect ourselves from a biological attack? and was he some kind of mad scientist as early as 2001, willing to kill innocent people for a cause? All speculative, under a speculative presumption of guilt. Somebody was a terrorist, for one reason or another, and it's unacceptable to suggest that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. (Other reminders posted elsewhere: the letters' content, as well as lying claims that they tested positive for a "trademark" chemical in use by Iraq, helped drive us to war against Iraq. Even the very experienced John McCain was sucker enough to speculate unjustifiably; Glenn Greenwald has more on ABC being a conduit for the fallacious claims of the Iraqi chemical.)
|
|
