For those who don't think abortion is an important issue when voting for a president

I realize that the website providing this information has a right-leaning bias (to put it mildly), but the information provided in this article appears to be correct.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=356962

Guitarist rankings

I created my own guitarist ranking system. I chose 30 guitarists that are often listed on guitarist rankings (Rolling Stone, etc.). I tried to be as objective as I could, but no rankings are actually objective. Many of the guitarists on this list are what I would consider mediocre or even poor guitarists (i.e. Keith Richards, James Hetfield, Prince and Kurt Cobain), but I still put them on the list because some people think they are good, and they were/are popular.

My methodology included five categories: virtuosity, precision, pioneering, quality, and popularity. I rated each guitarist in each category from one to ten (ten being the best). I gave some categories more weight than others (100% for virtuosity and quality; 90% for precision; 60% for pioneering, and 30% for popularity). Then, I added the totals. Here's what I came up with in descending order of "greatness."

1) David Gilmour
2) Steve Vai
3) Eric Clapton
4) Stevie Ray Vaughn
5) Jimi Hendrix
6) Eddie VanHalen
7) Robert Fripp
8) Joe Satriani
9) John McLaughlin
10) Chuck Berry
11) Brian May
12) Jimmy Page
13) Duane Allman
14) Carlos Santana
15) Jeff Beck
16) Alex Lifeson
17) Eric Johnson
18) Adrian Belew
19) Frank Zappa
20) BB King
21) Billy Corgan
22) Pete Townsend
23) Kurt Cobain
24) Slash
25) Joe Perry
26) James Hetfield
27) Bo Didley
28) Robert Johnson
29) Keith Richards
30) Prince

I was surprised by some of the rankings. My system was more objective than I anticipated because a few of my favorite guitarists were not in the top ten (i.e. Jimmy Page, Brian May and Frank Zappa). At least Keith Richards and Prince received their proper spot in this order.

For the 7 or 8 other Smashing Pumpkins and King Crimson Fans in the World

While listening to "Mayonaise" by the Smashing Pumpkins, I noticed that the song contains a guitar riff that is almost identical to a bass riff in "Red" by King Crimson. I did a quick google search and could not find anything noting the obvious similarity. Maybe this is because I am the only fan of both the Smashing Pumpkins and King Crimson. Or...maybe this is because the names of the songs are so dissimilar. Perhaps someone would have noted the similarity earlier if the Smashing Pumpkins had named their song "Ketchup" or if King Crimson had named their song "Lemon Chiffon." Just a thought.

Mayonaise (listen to the riff at 1:02 and 1:15)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-swlx9z2O0

Red (studio version is not online--live version below, listen at 1:09 and 1:19, but hard to hear in live version)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=313252524631448666&ei=buBCSY-dDYL8rAKama3uDA&q=king+crimson+red&hl=en&emb=1

Top 10 one hit wonders of my lifetime

I heard a song on the radio the other day that I hadn't heard in quite some time: Silent Lucidity by Queensryche. I've always liked that song. In my opinion, it's probably the only hair band song ever made that is worth 3-4 minutes of attention. It is also one of the few songs by a one hit wonder worthy of any attention. So...here's my top ten list of songs by one hit wonders--that have come out in my lifetime--that will usually keep me from changing the station on my car radio.

1) Silent Lucidity by Queensryche;
2) In the Meantime by Spacehog;
3) Space Lord by Monster Magnet;
4) No Rain by Blind Melon;
5) Walk on the Wild Side by Lou Reed (he has lots of other songs but none of note);
6) Song 2 by Blur;
7) Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger;
8) She Blinded Me With Science by Thomas Dolby;
9) Our House by Madness; and
10) Come on Eileen by Dexy's Midnight Runners.

The music of torture

I read on CNN.com today that some noisy teens who were causing a nuisance in their community are being penalized in an unusual(albeit effective in my mind) way. They are being forced to listen to Barry Manilow. With this in mind, here is my top ten list of bands/singers who would provide the most effective form of punishment for people, regardless of their age.

1) Michael McLean (I wouldn't even listen to it as a missionary)

2) Depeche Mode (aka Depress Mode)

3) Guns & Roses (aka Scums & Posers)

4) Cher (Plastic Surgery 101)

5) Barry Manilow (Coco Cabana: need I say more)

6) Blink 182 (Mike Tyson is their lead vocalist)

7) REO Speedwagon (RrrrrrrEO Speedwagon)

8) Neil Diamond ("Sweet Caroline" should not be said 63 times in one song)

9) REM (I don't feel shiny or happy when I hear them)

10) Yanni (Is he a computer programmer or a musician?)

Baffling quotes from judicial opinions

I read many court opinions in the course of a week (because my job primarily consists of sitting in front of a computer and conducting research). In doing so, I have come accross a number of rather interesting, inscrutable, and inexplicable quotes from the cases I've read. Where noted, I also found a couple interesting opininions on http://www.lawhaha.com/. They have a page of "strange judicial opinions."

1) “The literal terms of the statute do not stand in the way of our conclusion.” Sandler v. Bd. of Adjustment of Springfield Twp., 113 N.J. Super. 333, 345 (App. Div. 1971). (Note: Such terms usually do not stand in the way of the New Jersey judiciary's agendas.)

2) After citing Marbury v. Madison: "The result of this unconstitutional doctrine of judicial supremacy has been an increasing shift of the balance of powers from the elected executive and legislative branches of the federal government to the unelected judiciary ... The turning away from our national compact by federal courts now threatens our country with a constitutional crisis." Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Auth. v. City of Birmingham, 912 So. 2d 204, 223 n.21 (Ala. 2005). (Nice idea, but I'm pretty sure its too late for a Marbury-induced "crisis.") (lawhaha)

3) "Because of the extraordinarily sprawling and complex nature of this case, it would be desirable that there be an initial trial on the limited issue of the type and nature of the substances generated by each defendant, such initial trial to be followed by separate trials on such other issues as may be designated closer to the time for trial." Kenney v. Scientific, Inc., 204 N.J.Super. 228, 250 (Law Div. 198). (I hope this is merely a product of unedited dictation.)

4) "When an ordinance has both a valid and an invalid purpose, courts should not guess which purpose the governing body had in mind." D&M Asbury Realty v. City of Asbury Park, 2005 WL 3693210 N.J.Super. (App. Div. 2006). (Typically, your guess is as good as mine.)

5) "Before deciding the merits of this case the Court must address a troubling issue. The computer industry and other courts have adopted the term “pizza box” to describe the package in which the document containing the terms and conditions of the agreement is shipped. As a matter of law in the State of New York, such a container is not a “pizza box.” No self-respecting New York pizza would be caught soggy in such a box. The container may pass as a “ pizza box” in those parts of the world that think food from Domino's, Little Caesar's, Pizza Hut, and Poppa John's is pizza. In this Court's opinion such a classification cannot be recognized east of the Hudson River." Licitra v. Gateway, Inc., 189 Misc.2d 721, 723-24 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2001). (lawhaha)

6) And this might be the funniest ever, again from lawhaha: "I am not trying to be facetious; but before today, some spouses might have chosen to live in the Eleventh Circuit because they could wiretap their own telephone without being liable under federal law. Even if we think it unlikely that someone would live in our Circuit to avoid liability under federal law for wiretapping their spouse, it is our job to ensure that someone cannot be punished retroactively for doing so, as the act was clearly lawful." Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212, 1228 n.13 (11th Cir. 2003) (Edmondson, J., Dissenting). (This is for real. A judge really said this.)

In a concurrence, another judge satirically addressed the Dissent. "I suppose, then, a conversation between a couple sitting around their breakfast table in, oh say, Colorado (the Tenth Circuit having rejected Simpson years ago) might have gone something like this:

Jim: Honey, I've been thinking, we ought to move to Alabama.
Liz: But Sweetheart, I thought you liked living in Colorado.
Jim: I do, Sugar, but there's a problem.
Liz: What's troubling you, Sweetie?
Jim: Well, Punkin', Colorado is in the Tenth Circuit, and its federal appeals court has held that if I wiretap your private conversations without your knowledge and consent, I may have to pay you damages if you find out and sue me in federal court. But if we move to Alabama, which is in the Eleventh Circuit, its Simpson decision will allow me to invade your privacy electronically without having to worry about your having a civil claim against me in federal court.
Liz: But Honeybun, doesn't Alabama's criminal eavesdropping statute make it a crime to covertly record conversations without the consent of at least one of the parties to the conversation?
Jim: It does, Snookums, but all I'm worried about is the potential civil cause of action in federal court, not having to serve time in the state slammer.
Liz: You'll look so good in jailhouse stripes, my Love. When do we move?"

(This stuff is too good to make up.)

7) To be continued...

Anyone who considers Proposition 8 discriminatory either misunderstands or manipulates the law

I keep seeing the argument in opposition to Proposition 8 that the Proposition is “discriminatory.” The claimed reasoning follows that denying persons the ability to marry persons of the same sex somehow violates their Constitution and unalienable rights. These arguments are bogus.

First, consider a very intriguing argument from my stake president, Ahmed Corbitt, which he explained in stake conference on Sunday. It comes from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Has God endowed men and women with the right to marry those of the same sex? Can anyone legitimately make that argument? I think not.

Second, "marriage" under the law is a legal contract entered into between one man and one woman. That is how American society has traditionally defined such contracts. Proposition 8 opponents are not really asking for the same contract enjoyed by one man and one woman. Nothing prohibits a homosexual person from entering into the same legal contract that has traditionally existed in America and elsewhere. They are instead asking for a new and different contract—a contract with a new definition. The essence of what they are asking for can be boiled down to either: (1) a request for additional privileges or (2) a request for an alteration of an existing privilege. Traditional marriage and the “marriage” sought by opponents to Proposition 8 cannot coexist, as they are mutually exclusive.

Third, the argument propounded by opponents to Proposition 8 creates a slippery slope. I don’t usually ascribe the “slippery slope” philosophy, but I make an exception here because it is so apropos. I also note that this is not really a legal argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is a likely consequence of such. The slippery slope—a slippery slope of morality—applicable here is that the same arguments that support allowing same-sex marriage also support allowing polygamy, polyandry, human-animal marriage, marriage in incest, and marriage to trees (for the tree huggers). Surely, we don’t want that.

Reading law out of context

It is interesting how one can manipulate the law by reading it out of context. For example:

"[M]olesting wildlife is prohibited on or from Authority property." N.J.A.C. 19:2-5.6.

"[N]o vehicle shall be permitted to make use of any expressway." N.J.S.A. 27:25A-21.

"[S]tigmatize and marginalize Indian tribes and cultures, and increase the risk that they will be exposed to discriminatory treatment." 42 U.S.C.A. § 1996a.

"The Department may deny any application for a dam permit." N.J.A.C. 7:20-1.4.

"[M]inority and women-owned businesses, the Excecutive Director, in his discretion, may modify." N.J.A.C. 19:2-7.2.

"[T]he violation of the provisions of subsection i. of this section shall result in injury or death." N.J.S.A. 27:25A-21.

"[C]areful planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment." 42 U.S.C.A. § 6901.

"[H]oof upon the expressway at any time, unless acting under contract or permit." N.J.A.C. 19:2-4.2.

"[A]pply lead paint to toys, furniture or the exposed interior surfaces of any dwelling as defined in this act, or to any exterior surface that is readily accessible to children." N.J.S.A. 24:14A-1.

"[I]t is in the public interest to establish a greenhouse gas emission." N.J.S.A. 26:2C-38.

"Torment, torture, maim, hang, poison, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate a living animal or creature." N.J.S.A. 4:22-17.

Mormon and Black Gay Haters

I kept a close eye on the Proposition 8 election results on the Wednesday after election day. I primarily relied upon CNN.com because they regularly updated the election results as they came in and because they provided interesting exit polling information. One bit of information that I found particularly interesting was the exit poll based on race. I was surprised to learn what has now become common knowledge: that more than 70% of black voters in California supported Proposition 8. Support for the Proposition was especially high for African-American women. (Does this mean we can thank Barak Obama for its passage?) And this was in California! Imagine the support the black community would have provided to such a measure in a more conservative and religious-minded state like Alabama or Mississippi.

Since that Wednesday, I have read several articles and seen many pictures and videos placing the majority of the blame for the Proposition's passage on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The nature of much of the blame cast at the Church has been derogatory and even downright nasty. This got me thinking: what if those casting derogatory comments at the Church cast their comments instead at the black community? After all, it is likely that a larger percentage of African-American's supported the Proposition than did Mormons, especially if one includes the entire membership of the Church (i.e. including those who are not actively Mormon).

With this in mind, let's pretend this oppostion was aimed at blacks instead of Mormons. Pretend the anti-Prop 8 slogans of the day were: "F#%!ing blacks" on large illuminated signs hung from San Fransisco homes, "black hate out of my state" on a protestor's sign, and "Blacks--Child-molesting bigots" outside of your local NAACP office. Wow! That would get your attention.

Quality advertising

I found this ad to be very amusing. Apparently, she not only lost her flab in two weeks, but she also lost her tan.

Sam's Church Do

I tried to convince Amber that Samuel should go to church with this hair do, but she felt otherwise.

Very funny McCain-Obama comic

Opinion cartoon in the Augusta Chronicle by Rich McKee

Attention all fans of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies

Harry Kalas's call for the entire bottom of the 9th in game 5.

http://onthedlpodcast.com/clips/phils_champs_harry.mp3

Why Can't Us?

The Phillies are in the World Series, which brings out the best in Phillies fans. At least, it brings out the best stupid things said by Philadelphians. Listen to the conversation at the link below. The setting for the conversation is a talk radio show, and a caller is explaining why the Phils can win the World Series. It's funny to most of the English speaking world, but 95% of the people who grew up in South Philly would merely pump their fist and agree with the caller. In fact, they'd likely repeat the amusing slogan used by the caller and wonder why everyone else was laughing.

http://deadspin.com/5067260/and-this-is-how-why-cant-us-came-to-be

Also, the picture below is wrong, but it still made me laugh.

This picture looks like it was taken from a Saturday Night Live skit...but of course it was not. These men run our country. Are you comfortable with that? They don't look like the finest minds in our country. They look more like a collection of dim-wits trying to get as close together as possible to ensure that they are within the viewfinder of the camera. (Is that the Dunkin Doughnuts guy talking into the microphone?)

The 10 rock bands you are most likely to hear while walking through a trailer park

1) Ozzy Osborne (or some variation thereof)

2) Metallica

3) Ratt

4) Guns and Roses

5) AC/DC

6) The Rolling Stones

7) Aerosmith

8) Motley Crue

9) Tool

10) Lynyrd Skynyrd

The 11 worst bands that somehow managed to become popular

1) Rolling Stones (I don't understand the fascination: untalented, repetitious, and worthless in so many ways.)

2) Aerosmith (No creativity. Take the allusions to sex out of their songs and there's nothing left.)

3) Foreigner (One hit wonders who somehow managed more than one hit.)

4) Def Leppard (The Foreigner of hair bands.)

5) Guns and Roses (Anyone who's ever seen a live G&R performance understands that they have/had absolutely no talent.)

6) REM ("Shiney Happy People?" Come on.)

7) Pearl Jam (One decent song. Since then, nothing but politics.)

8) Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band (I heard that he puts on a good live show. The problem is that he only plays his music during those shows.)

9) The Moody Blues (People actually listen to this stuff?)

10) Oasis (Beatles wanna-be's. Popular for only a short time--could be lumped into a "one-hit-wonder" category.)

11) AC/DC (What's to like?)

Top 10 little-known songs by well-known bands

The local classic rock station here in Philly "gets the led out" every day at 7pm. (As most classic rock fans know, just about every classic rock station in the country does the same.) I'm a big Zeppelin fan, but I get tired of the same ol' overplayed Zeppelin songs. How many times can one hear "Over the Hills and Far Away" and still enjoy it? The same can be said for other bands. "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Money" were nice the first 500 times, but they began to lose their effect on me by listen number 501. With this in mind, the following are some of the best little-known songs by well-known bands. These songs are obviously not unknown, but you'll wait a long time before you ever hear them on the radio.

1) Led Zeppelin "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp" (honorable mentions "Friends," "You Shook Me" and "No Quarter")

2) Pink Floyd "Astronomy Domine," the Ummagumma version with Gilmour on guitar in place of Barrett (honorable mentions "Dogs," "The Nile Song" and "Echoes")

3) Queen "It's Late" (honorable mention "The Prophet's Song")

4) The Police "So Lonely" (honorable mention "Canary in a Coalmine")

5) Jimi Hendrix "Machine Gun" (I can't think of an honorable mention, unless you consider "Voodoo Child" little-known.)

6) The Who "Squeeze Box" (I know some radio stations play this somewhat regularly, i.e. 102.9 in Philly, but most never play it.)

7) The Beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun" (hands down, the best Beatles song ever)

8)Styx "Suite Madame Blue" (honorable mention "Babe") No. Really. "Suite Madame Blue" is actually a good Styx song; one that could not have been sung by Barry Manilow.

9) Rush "Xanadu" (honorable mention "Red Barchetta")

10) Genesis "The Musical Box" (honorable mention "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe"). Most people think of Phil Collins' crap when they think of Genesis. Those people might be pleasantly surprised that Genesis was a completely different animal prior to 1975.

The politics of abortion (my first real post)

I have been inspired to post my first official blog. The inspiration: the intersection of abortion and politics.

I just read a blog written by a friend from my law school days. He noted in his blog that he intends to vote for Obama in the coming election. This baffled me, as I know he opposes abortion. I've come across this paradox before, and I still do not understand why it exists. What makes a pro-life supporter vote for a pro-choice candidate? I can think of only two justifications, neither of which make much sense at the end of the day. The two justifications are: (1) abortion is just one of many issues to weigh in the balance (with other issues taking precedence over abortion) and/or (2) a President's views on abortion do not significantly affect the laws regulating abortion. (If anyone can think of another reason, please comment.)

As to abortion being simply one issue to weigh in the balance of many issues, I fail to see the logic. If you are truly against abortion, it is more than just one of the many issues to weigh in the balance when deciding for whom to vote. Instead, it is the preeminent issue of our day, just as slavery was the preeminent issue in the early days of our country. When Lincoln was running for president, pro-slavery advocates reasoned that slaves were property; therefore, they were not entitled to the protections afforded to persons under the Constitution. In hindsight, that reasoning is ridiculous and abusive. Similarly, pro-choice advocates today reason that unborn children are not yet persons entitled to Constitutional protections. In the words of Justice Blackmun in the Roe v. Wade opinion, "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." This modern reasoning is just as ridiculous and abusive as the pro-slavery reasoning used 150 years ago. In some ways it is even more abusive, as slaves at least had some value as "property." Unborn children in America have no value, so their lives can be aborted. With this in mind, a modern pro-life voter's assertion that abortion is just one of many issues is analogous to a early 1800's anti-slavery voter's assertion that slavery is just one of many issues to weigh in the balance. Such an assertion is foolish at best.

An argument that the President will have little impact on the laws regulating abortion is similarly unimpressive. All one has to do is look at our current Supreme Court. On the pro-life side are Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and (sometimes) Kennedy. On the pro-choice side are Justices Ginsburg, Bryer, and Souter. Roberts and Alito were Bush (the younger) appointments. Scalia and Kennedy were Reagan appointments. Thomas and Souter were Bush (the elder) appointments. Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointments. Stevens was a Ford appointment. With the exception of Souter and Stevens (and occasional departures by Kennedy), these appointments all follow the expected abortion line. And I am sure that this line would be even more pronounced if Circuit Court judges were included. In other words, modern precedent indicates that a President significantly impacts the status of abortion in America through his judicial appointments. Thus, how can a pro-life voter support a pro-choice candidate? Am I missing something here?

Some day when I have some free time I will post a blog on this site.