Thursday, November 07, 2013

Shinedown - Enemies - Lyrics

Monday, February 18, 2013

'From Can to Can't' - Sound City Movie (Grohl, Taylor, Nielsen, Reeder)

"From Can To Can't"
(with Dave Grohl, Rick Nielsen, Scott Reeder)

Under the water,
It's cold and it's grey.
My torrid autumn,
Another season decays.
Open up the Hollow,
And my walls come down.
I tell you it's a problem,
Just when no one's around.
But then,

I know what's wrong,
God, you complicated everything.
I know you're gone, gone, gone,
This is where I will draw a line.

I will draw my line.

Burning my cathedrals',
Cause I don't pray anymore.
Look at all of these people, Tragic little people,
They smile and then they don't know what for.
But then,

I know what's wrong,
God, you complicated everything.
I know you're gone, gone, gone,
This is where I will blur my line.

I will blur my line.

[Riff continues]

Our houses are haunted, Dark and deserted,
They're made of my secrets and shame.
Baby I want it I know I'm not worth it,
I can't even tell you my name.
But then,

I know what's wrong,
God, you complicated everything.
I know you're wrong,
God, you took it all away from me.
I know you're gone, gone, gone,
This is where I will cross my line.

I am crossing my line.

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

For my precious boy - I will see you again some day, some where, some how...

Have you ever lost someone you can’t live without,
someone who was drowning,
someone you tried with all your strength to save,
but you weren’t strong enough to wrench them away from the water,
the vast, devious, greedy water?
So the water roared away with its treasure,
a treasure it didn’t even value.
It only valued the taking and the winning and the dominion.

How do you keep breathing in and out with the pain and the failure and the water, now trying to drag you down?

Friday, May 11, 2012

Guns, Guns, Guns!

Here's the thing, nobody's doing ANYTHING to Nugent. Since President Obama took office, NO federal gun laws have changed one bit, and no cases have been decided related to gun laws by the Supreme Court. He's the one having a giant, violence inciting hissy fit for absolutely no reason ... well there are obvious reasons, but I'm not going to get into that.

Here's what I will get into - I think it would be a good idea for people to actually understand the 2nd Amendment.

The "right to bear arms" has nothing whatsoever to do with personal defense or hunting. Let's take a look at the meaning of the amendment when it was actually written, as originalists like Justice Scalia are so fond of doing. Having a gun during the time of the founding fathers was a given. People couldn't survive in that wild land without guns to hunt and defend themselves against wild animals, native American attacks, etc.

No, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not talking about defending yourself against bears or burglars. They are talking about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Here's the problem with that, case law has established that the legal definition of "arms" is anything you can carry in your arms. The founding fathers certainly never foresaw nuclear weapons, missile launchers, etc. All the handguns in the world are not going to stop those weapons. So, if you were to follow the founders meaning to it's modern equivalent, then by that logic, yes, your neighbor should be able to have a rocket launcher in his garage, and you can build a missile silo in your back yard. I sure as hell don't want to live on that street. Imagine what Ted Nugent would do with those weapons.

By the same token, concealed weapons, are not something the founders would have envisioned as a necessity of "a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state." That's utterly absurd.

The Constitution is not some infallible, sacred document that cannot be improved with time and advancements. Otherwise, I'd still be a non-person who is little more than a piece of property in this country. I've heard many times that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," and "it is a living document." I believe both of those things to be absolutely true, and if the founders were alive today, they most certainly would not want their neighbors having missile silos in their back yards. That would be insane.

However, the founders are not alive today - we are. We are the self-governed. They gave us a great foundation for liberty, and some pretty terrific ideas. It is up to US to maintain and nurture what they started, and we're doing a pretty sh*tty job IMO. Not since The Civil War have we been so polarized, and usually based on nothing of substance. In fact, we seem to think polarization IS governing and refusing to compromise or think for ourselves is patriotism. Nothing could be farther from the true. WE are our country, not so much dirt and trees, and WE are our government. It's what we do together, as a government, for the common good - that's what patriotism is all about, what we have in common, not out disagreements. I can't figure out how that got so confused.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Affordable Health Care Act meets the Supremes

EVERYONE should listen to the ENTIRE oral argument, instead of what the idiot pundits on each side tell us to think. You can listen HERE.

It is VERY important to remember that the Sup. Ct. Justices are NOT speaking in support of one side or another in oral ARGUMENTS. They are simply hashing out the various legal questions that each side must address and getting THEIR arguments on those issues. Justices often question the attorneys regarding positions they, themselves don't advocate. Oral arguments and what each justice says is not necessarily indicitive of their opinions.

So, let's not be such drama queens. The decision is MONTHS away. So, I'd like to say, there's no need for another never-ending outragathon! There's so much to be in a useless tizzy Futile, half-baked rage is all the rage, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. :D

A lot can happen in 3 months. I doubt Kennedy has made up his mind yet, and it sounds like he will be the tiebreaker again. However, I want to emphasis, that I have read oral arguments where you were sure you knew which side a Sup. Ct. Justice came down on, when what he/she was really doing was testing the soundness of the argument they actually favored. These justices are probably going to hash this out many, many times in the next few months, trying to persuade and inform each other on various legal theories. The decision is FAR from in the bag for either side, and THAT is my entire point. No sense getting all freaked over something that hasn't happened yet and may not happen, and you couldn't affect anyway. It's just embarrassing to see people on your "side," or the other, act like freaking idiots all the time. Jeez.

"The Justices will cast their first votes on the mandate’s constitutionality later this week, and there are perhaps three months of deliberations that would then follow."

"If that coalition were to form, it would be likely that Justice Kennedy, the senior among those five, almost certainly would assign the opinion to himself — unless, of course, the Chief Justice ultimately were persuaded to go along so that this historic case did not turn out to be decided 5-4. Roberts was among the more combative adversaries of the mandate, during Verrilli’s argument, but he made considerable efforts to remind the challengers’ lawyers of the government’s key points, perhaps to test how solid their answers to those points would be."

Let's wait and see what the actual decision is, shall we?

The fact is, the government mandates we do all kinds of things, on the local, state and federal levels - like get vaccinations, have car insurance, educate our kids, right down to keeping our lawn mowed in some communities. WE are the government, on EVERY level, and WE have made laws that make our society a better place for all of us. That's all government is.

I think the interesting argument here is whether the commerce clause is what the government should primarily be resting the constitutionality of this law on. Seems to me the general welfare clause makes more sense. But this is why I am giddy that I get to listen to these oral arguments in full. I find this kind of thing utterly fascinating. It's well beyond my education and training as a paralegal, and that of most lawyers in fact. Constitutional law is a VERY specific and difficult area of practice, but a lot of this argument is plain spoken and the concepts are not difficult to understand. It's much more interesting that Keith Olbermann yayaing mindlessly till I want to blow my brains out.