I really have no intention of turning this into a political blog, but maybe that is what is happening.
2 cent cell phone fee riles governor; House ignores Jindal’s plea to kill bill | The Lens:
“‘There’s no question that it was an important statement that the speaker made with that vote about doing the right thing rather than how it’s going to be scored by some outside group,’ Robideaux said in an interview Wednesday.
Jindal’s administration warned lawmakers that Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group headed by Grover Norquist, would flag it as a tax increase, lawmakers said.”
I agree with Rep. Robideaux. Who cares what Grover Norquist thinks. Do what is right for the people of Louisiana. Good job fellas.
I don’t usually do non-arts-related political posts here, but here comes one, so click away if that doesn’t interest you.
The thing that I haven’t heard any one say in the gun control debate is that the advances in military technology have negated the reason for the existence of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment guaranteed that we (The People of the United States) could bear arms so that we would be able to defend ourselves against oppressive government. Like we did when we fought for our independence from Britain. This made perfect sense when the government-supported-military used the same weapons that citizens used.
This is no longer the case. Hand guns, or even assault rifles and machine guns, will do us no good against drones, B1 bombers, and F16s. We as individual citizens are technologically incapable of defending ourselves against our own military, therefore the argument that we must have the right to buy a gun over the internet or at a gun show without a background check because we need to be able to defend ourselves from the possibility of our government going bad is a fallacious argument.
What we need to do to defend ourselves from our government going bad is to quit electing self-serving, egotistical idiots who value a rating from a lobbying group more than the wishes of their constituents. We need to quit electing people who value staying in office more than doing the right thing.
A nice review from Derek Taylor in Dusted.
Dusted Reviews: Jeff Albert’s Instigation Quartet – The Tree on the Mound:
“By the time the four align on the first of Albert’s four ‘Instigation’ pieces (inexplicably out of numerical sequence and missing two in the order), everybody sounds as if they’re more comfortably on the same page. The last three tracks in particular find the group really hitting a galvanizing stride and crafting a series of bracing contrapuntal passages. ‘Instigation Quartet #6’ unfolds as a succession of duets, the first an explosive dialogue between Jordan and Abrams, the next a slow burn from Albert and Drake before moving on to an invigorating ensemble section and roof-raising solo by Jordan. Tenor and trombone converse and cavort in ornate arcs with a level of close confluence complemented by bass and drums. It’s a consensus that carries over into the closer, a collective leap through the indelible finger-snapping groove of Anderson’s ‘The Strut.’”
Since this is my blog, I will explain the inexplicable. The numbers on the IQ pieces are just a way to identify each one. I could have just as well called them Sue, John, Paul, George, and Ringo. They aren’t a suite meant to be played in order, just a collection of similar pieces. They are out of numerical order because that order made a better CD, and they aren’t all there because some of the recordings didn’t make the CD. Just like if they were five improvisations that had non-similar abstract names.
Interestingly, in an attempt to give the pieces names that created no baggage, expectations were still created. There may eventually be a longer post based on that dilemma.