Pages

Friday, July 3, 2015

Ned-scapades.

Step one: fill the little box with letters. It's a letter box! Step two, check your work on step one. Step three: press "publish" and watch the blue smoke come out. You are now a "blogger", Charlie! All you need now are decipherable opinions.

Well, here we are at the mill, still waiting for the next episode of our Podcast THIS IS BIG GREEN to roll off the back of a truck. Late again. Must be short on key ingredient this month. Actually, as I pointed out last week, the main ingredient is work on our parts, which is rare indeed. A jem of great price ... that price being the sweat off of our collective brows. Work, work, work ... that's what a podcast is all about. The internet is a slave-driver! Small wonder we chose to outsource its production to some nameless third world country. Working through a social media broker, we have been assured of a good and reliable product, voiced by people who sound exactly like Matt and I, their Indonesian accents just barely detectable ... (Oh, what a giveaway!)

Looking forward to hearing how they handle the Ned Trek episode. This one was a challenge - another musical, no less. There are six ... maybe seven songs included in the script, all brand new production. Those poor folks in Jakarta have their work cut out for them. (And yes, I'm sure you've guessed that our "brokers" are actually our old corporate label, Hegemonic Records and Worm Farm, also known as Hegephonic. They've likely got sweatshops on four continents toiling 24/7 to pump out this episode.)

That's the stuff.What have we been doing with all of our free time? Thought you might want to know. Actually, Matt's been chasing Peregrine falcons around downtown Utica, like the very good fellow he is. (You can check on his efforts - and even contribute to them, if you like - on the Utica Peregrine Falcon site.) My efforts have been of a more pedestrian nature, actually. I spent the last few weeks working on our new Ned Trek site, posting a few episodes extracted from our podcast, and making it look as ridiculous as possible. Here it is, mobile-ready and set to roll: http://www.nedtrek.com

So ... yeah, that happened. What's up with you? Let me know. You know how I worry.

Harm vs. harm.

No denying that last week was a big week in the world of Supreme Court jurisprudence. While I am no legal scholar, here are my two-cents on a few of the decisions:

Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court decided that the protections associated with marriage can no longer be denied to gay couples. About freaking time. It always struck me as ironic that we should forbid marriage to a group of people who seem to want it more than anyone else. Though I'm happy with mine, I am no firm believer in marriage as an institution. I think its only value - and this is my opinion, of course - is that it enables you to enjoy certain benefits granted by the government - tax advantages, visitation rights, property rights, etc. That's the way things work; that's the way our society is arranged. Given all that, couples of all sorts should be allowed to marry.

Eloquent as always, Justice Scalia.Marriage equality is seen by some evangelical Christians as a threat to their beliefs. Those who confer marriage licenses in some official capacity as well as those whose businesses serve the wedding market want the option to deny service to gay couples. Religious liberty statutes are cropping up everywhere. So, my question for these folks is, let's consider the potential harm on either side. For the evangelicals, if gays can marry, their forfeit is being outraged and offended; it may affect their mood around the dinner table at Christmas. On the other hand, for gay couples, being denied the right to marry means not being able to share your life with the one you love, tend to them when they're sick, build a life with them, etc. Far greater harm, I would argue.

Glossip v. Gross. Apparently the sight of a death row inmate writhing in pain for an extended period of time was not enough to convince the majority on the court to rule this ad-hoc medical procedure known as chemical execution unconstitutional. Justice Alito basically told the defendant-inmates that they need to identify an alternative method by which they may be done to death; otherwise, this method is good enough. Once again, thank you, Dubya Bush, for appointing this sorry piece of work; and thanks to your father for appointing the even sorrier Justice Thomas.

Enough bloviating for one day. Time for the mattress.

luv u,

jp