Freedom

I'm not a lawyer. Surprised? Too much work, too much school. But I do love the law, and read about it often. So I was not surprised when I found this critique of Sonia Sotomayor from conservatarian blog Point of Law:

I suggested hope that she might apply such strong free-speech views to cases involving campaign finance restrictions.

Alas, we now know better. A former member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor has written aggressively in favor of strict campaign finance regulation:

The tolerance in this country for questionable behavior by public officials is illustrated by the persistence of extremely troubling--but legal-- practices in the public arena. In one of the murkiest and least well-controlled areas, we find ourselves debating what the quid pro quo's are for campaign contributions. Here we have abandoned standards we would surely apply in any other context. We would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers' interests. Yet our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate. Can elected officials say with credibility that they are carrying out the mandate of a "democratic" society, representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns? If they cannot, the public must demand a change in the role of private money or find other ways, such as through strict, well-enforced regulation, to ensure that politicians are not inappropriately influenced in their legislative or executive decision-making by the interests that give them contributions. (footnotes omitted)

As I read her comments, Sotomayor seems either woefully ignorant of or utterly unconcerned by the centrality of political speech to the First Amendment, and the pretty self-evident notion that monies spent on or donated to campaigns constitute political speech.

Crap. simply crap. I know, having buckets full of money entitles one to buy a big house, a private jet, a fancy car. But the weird fetish of the right that political contributions are "free speech" makes no sense at all.

Until one understands that they want, they encourage, government takeover by the wealthy, and the corporations. Then it all makes sense. Bribery as a public policy is a feature, not a bug.

Clearly the writers of the 1st & 14th amendments had no intention of these laws being used for this purpose. It is a perverse agenda-driven analysis that sees a wealthy person's contributions to a political campaign as being worth more that someone donating pennies. Yet the conservatarian right continues to sound this cry, that being able to donate $1,000,000 to Sen. X's campaign will give you a quid pro quo with Sen. X after he/she is elected.

Yes, you can donate anything you want to a campaign. No, you can not expect anything in return except that your dollars are sepnt by the campaign.

Fools, idiots, bastards.

Fly on little wing

While many progressive and left-leaning blogs also traffic in humor, wit, and even snark, there are a few that are deadly serious, chock full of great issue-oriented writing by very smart people.

One of the top in this category is OpenLeft, and they're having a little fund raiser:

Even during a time when progressives and Democrats are ascendant politically, very few political organizations and media outlets overtly self-identify as left-wing in America. The urge that many politicians, pundits and organizational staff have to apologize for being leftist, or deny they are leftist altogether, is palpable. See, for example, Democrats tripping over themselves to call Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor moderate. While conservative, pro-corporate policies have driven the country into a ditch, being called "liberal," "leftist," and to a lesser degree "progressive," remains a label that most prominent Democrats and advocacy organizations work to avoid at all costs.

Open Left is a rare exception to this rule. We have consistently produced analysis, and organized activist campaigns, with unabashedly left-wing goals. For example:

1. When the national media was looking for someone--anyone--to articulate a coherent left-wing critique of Obama administration appointees during the transition, they had few places to turn but Open Left.
2. When others complained about the lack of infrastructure spending in the stimulus, we actually helped increase it.
3. When, in 2007, Democratic presidential candidates were all claiming they were going to end the war in Iraq, it was Open Left that exposed the reality behind the rhetoric. We forced a national debate over plans to leave tens of thousands of so-called "residual forces". Additionally, we helped produce an alternative policy called the Responsible Plan to End the War, which was signed by several then-congressional candidates, and now-current members of Congress.

Here's what proprietor Chris Bowers says about himself and other main contributors (all true):

Whether it is my polling and demographic analysis, Mike Lux's expansive knowledge of progressive institutions and history, David Sirota's hard-nosed economic populism, or Paul Rosenberg's wide-ranging cultural critique, this is not the sort of thoroughgoing, left-wing, yet still realpolitik, leftism you will find in many other media outlets or political organizations in America.

Seriously, these people are, as Teh Kidz™ used to say, 'The Shit'. They're not just kicking the tires of the progressive car, they're designing the new engine. Help them out if you can, because they deserve it. I'll be sending them some bucks in the next few days. You should too.


On a side note, pretty much everyone who has ever covered Jimi's "Little Wing" has gotten it wrong, including the lovely and talented Stevie Ray Vaughan. How so, you might wonder? The lack of subtleties and restraint. Jimi's setting of the song has softness, and delicacy, and while many of the other versions out there showcase great chops and technique, they still manage to miss the point.

Of course, your mileage may vary (YMMV).

'Cause I can play this here guitar, Pt. 22

Sometimes wonderful guitar players aren't merely underappreciated, they're largely unknown. Here's one small attempt to correct that.

Mention 'steel guitar' and most people think syrupy country music. More hip listeners will know that steel guitar, in country and elsewhere, is practiced by some bad-ass players, and the instrument can do far more than accompany a mediocre country popster.

Only the truly hip will know of "Sacred Steel":

Troman and Willie Eason brought the electric steel guitar to House of God services in the late 1930s. While Troman played in the straight Hawaiian style, Willie, who never had lessons, imitated African American singing with his instrument. His voice-like single string work became the basis of the House of God steel guitar tradition. Willie traveled widely playing the steel guitar and singing, first to tour with Bishop J. R. Lockley's Gospel Feast Party, then later by himself to perform street corner music ministries. He recorded a total of eighteen sides in the 1940s and 50s

Read the whole piece, it's interesting and informative. There's also a Wikipedia entry that has some good links. But still, what's the point you might ask? Robert Randolph, the most well-known practitioner of this art. From Wikipedia:

Randolph, a native of Irvington, New Jersey,^[1] began playing the steel guitar in the House of God Church, which used steel guitars in worship services.

. . . Randolph himself has explained that in his adolescent years before his discovery by the secular community, he was almost completely unaware of non-religious music, saying "I never heard of the Allman Brothers, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, none of them. I wasn’t into that music, only the church thing."

He learned really fast. This isn't Willie Nelson or Merle Haggard's (as wonderful as they are) steel guitar. Robert is really special. His website: robertrandolph.net

Here's one of his signature songs:



Starting to get the idea, see the possibilities?

Try this one:



I'm sure you saw that coming. But here's one that will suprise you, some old-school r'n'b:



And last, for the 3 of you that have made it this far, here is more proof that any instrument can work in any Genre. Witness Buddy Emmons, one of the earliest and still best masters of country steel playing, blowing some serious jazz:



(full disclosure: The original author of this video disabled embedding in YouTube. I downloaded the video using TubeSock, and uploaded it to my YouTube page. I hope he's not upset.)