*Promote those finely tuned adjustments!

Thanks! (He plays a wicked harmonica, doesn't he?)
In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin–Helmholtz_instability

Brideshead Visited Again
On the Street
1985

Could you kindly describe the specific way in which a Neo-Nazi's $500 donation would exert an influence over a candidate like Ron Paul? It seems like an absurd generalization to me. (Besides, Don Black—the Neo-Nazi in question—has said publicly that his support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with endorsing white supremacy: "Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. 'We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice,' Black said.")

On a tangential note, you seem to be taking an odd stance with your comment about "murders" and "child rapists." Are you suggesting that certain criminals ought not be allowed to make contributions to political campaigns? If so, where would you draw the line?>> ^longde:

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.
Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?
>> ^aurens:
Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."

In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.

More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")

The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

"First of all, it's a beautiful day, and I don't know what the hell you're doing inside."

Even Walt Whitman would agree, in this case, that it's worth staying indoors to listen to the learn'd astronomer.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God said, Let there be the Baja 1000: and there was the Baja 1000.

6 And God said, Let there be cameras: and there were cameras.

7 And God said, Let there be tripods: and there were tripods.

8 And God said, Actually, fuck it. I take back the tripods.

Wait, what about Ezekiel 25:17?

I'd say that's more an indictment of the schooling he's received than a statement of his abilities as a composer. (Symphony No. 5, to me at least, is more or less indistinguishable from some of the symphonies written by the "great" composers of the last century or so.)

Sadly, the classically harmonious qualities (including the "progression," the "building of emotion," the storytelling) that many of us appreciate in, say, Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin are no longer in vogue (and haven't been for quite some time). Contemporary composition—and the same could be said of most contemporary painting, sculpture, writing, et cetera—aims more for fragmentation, disruption, and discord. The audience isn't meant to feel harmony; we're meant to be dislodged.

This could become a pretty serious rant, I guess, but I'll hold back. I will say, though, that the brief clips of his early compositions (5:52–6:12) sounded quite pleasing to me, if a little imitative. And the part where he inverted the Beethoven sonata was pretty darn cool. (It reminded me, in a roundabout way, of the scene in Amadeus where Mozart plays the piano while lying upside down.)
>> ^TheFreak:
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.

I think that might be my grandpa.

It's cause for concern (to say the least) when leaders like Putin are the ones asking the important questions.

Condemning brutality—and, by extension, a seemingly endless list of military interventions motivated by a warped sense of self-interest—hardly constitutes "rooting against" one's own country. To me, the ones doing the greater harm are those who fail to criticize the aspects of the United States' foreign policy that have been, and remain, undeniably disastrous.>> ^ShakaUVM:

Disgusting how many people on this page are rooting against their own country ...

"Dutch postman"? Or "Lance Armstrong, formerly of the USPS"?