Friday, June 03, 2005

Thor! Thor! Thor!

Music Wonkery

Let’s face it. Metal is dumb. Metal has always been dumb. And hopefully, metal will always be dumb. (I could, however, do without the “Metallica bleating 12-step recovery program slogans over a tin drum” kind of dumb. Because that’s just not metal.) And why fight the dumb? Metal is loud; it’s obvious; it’s incurably theatrical. Dumb is the way of metal, and the dumber the better. Leather! Flames! Swords! Warriors! Skulls! Hot chicks and motorbikes! Hell, yeah!

John Mikl Thor (his real name) was at one time a winner of the Mr. Canada and Mr. USA pageants, a champion bodybuilder with a taste for training to heavy rock. Back in the ‘70s, when it was still (relatively) cool to wear studded leather collars and sing about the hammer of the gods, Thor stole a page from Alice Cooper and KISS and took his act on the road as Thor The Rock God, blending metal with Norse mythology and epic stage shows (he claims to have been an influence on GWAR and Manowar). Starting in the late ‘70s, he toured the globe doing mock battle with evil warlords, brandishing sword and shield, and perform feats of strength such as bending steel bars, smashing bricks against his chest, and blowing up hot water bottles until they burst. He has been known to ride onstage in Charlton Heston’s chariot from Ben-Hur.

And even though the world has moved on and metal has turned to rap and weepy teen diary excerpts for new inspiration, Thor is still making music. His new album, Thor Against The World is out next month on Smog Veil Records.

So what does the rock god’s new album sound like? Well, it’s goofy, it’s bombastic, and it’s as satisfying to the primitive part of my lizard-brain where the metal receptors are located as anything I’ve ever heard. Thor Against The World rocks in the finest tradition of AC/DC, Alice Cooper, KISS, WASP, Judas Priest, and all the other great deep-shag acts of the golden age of hard rock. Is it an instant classic? No. But it is one hell of a lot of fun.

Being that Thor seems bent on partying like it’s 1979, the album is rife with classic drum sounds, shouted choruses ("Creature! Feature! I wanna meetcha! Meetcha!") heroic guitar solos, and the occasional soaring synth (on “Megaton Man"). The lyrical content mainly dwells on tough love, universal battles, and the glory and power of Thor. As it turns out, all those years of bodybuilding and bursting hot water bottles have given Thor quite a set of pipes. While he’s no Ronnie James Dio, he sings the hell out of his eleven sword-sorcery-and-sex tales in a leathery baritone in the finest tradition of the Alice Cooper/Paul Stanley school of bombastic frontmen. And really… how can one not like a record that features a legion of warriors shouting “Thor! Thor! Thor!” and includes songs called “Creature Feature,” “Easy Woman,” “Serpents Kiss” and “The Coming of Thor?” The cherry on top is a surprisingly affecting ballad ("Turn To Blue") in the finest SWOBHM* tradition.

Thor has dedicated himself to stoking the flame of that primal, stooped, over-the-top school of rock that went out about the time Gene Simmons took off his makeup. If you long for the days of Trans Ams, pop-top beer, and WASP, KISS, and Alice Cooper, there is no possible way to do better than Thor Against The World. As long as you have a taste for the dumb side of metal (and what red-blooded American doesn’t?), I can’t recommend this highly enough.

*(That’s “Second Wave of British Heavy Metal.” Geek.)

www.thorcentral.com

image Thor circa 1979

image Thor circa 2003


Posted by Johno on 06/03/05 at 01:35 PM
Music WonkeryPermalink

Tovarich, Graf sucks, da?

War

In my era, there were three locales in Germany that you were either preparing (and perhaps dreading) to go back to, just returning from, or in the midst of suffering through: Wildflecken, Hohenfels, and Grafenwoehr .  Wildflecken was the least-improved and smallest of the three; Hohenfels was traditionally the spot for force-on-force maneuver.  Graf was a series of firing ranges, from small arms to tank guns to anti-tank missiles. 

Graf was not only a place to be cold in, bitch about, or not get laid at.  It was a place of contradictions, of dichotomies peculiar to federal agencies or major military organizations: the training areas and ranges were all heavily wooded and accessible by dirt road ("tank trail") or helicopter, making everything seem distant and private, but the whole facility exists right next to a small fairy-tale of a town.  Monstrous machines of war went from range to range, their crews perfecting their deadly trade, but everything stopped if a boar sow and her brood crossed the road in front of them.  It was possible to be wet and sleepless for days on end as you trained for battle, but do bring your clubs because there’s a golf course on the main post.

And now we can add a new contradiction: Russians at Graf.  Stars & Stripes has coverage here of the first joint live-fire training in Germany between Russian and American forces. 

Wildflecken and Graf had the ranges to train for repulsing invading Russian hordes, while Hohenfels had the physical space to simulate maneuvering against Russian hordes.  Who’d a thunk that instead of invading, the Russian hordes would be invited?


Posted by GeekLethal on 06/03/05 at 09:13 AM
WarPermalink

Thursday, June 02, 2005

It’s a little early, but…

Partisan Politics

...why the hell not.  Baseball Crank gets jiggy with the statistics, and starts talking about the 2006 Senate races.  Based on his analysis, it looks like the Democrats might have a tough row to hoe in trying to undo some of the Republican majority.  By adding the percentage of the vote that Senator got in the last election to the vote that his state gave to the Presidential candidate of his party, the Crank comes up with a rough measure of both the political climate in a state and its feelings toward its Senator.

Of the ten lowest ranked races, seven are Democratic seats and three Republican.  Of the 33 total races, less than half (fifteen) are Republican seats.  Of the races that the Crank ranks as relatively solid, I think two deserve some further consideration: Vermont and New York.

Jeffords was elected as a moderate Republican by a broad margin.  I wonder how pissed those voters are with his defection, and whether another Republican candidate could take advantage of that.  Also, Hilary will likely be running for President, and would any other Democrat stand against Guliani if he wanted that seat?  Or even Lazio, who did pretty well considering he had nothing like the name recognition of Hilary and entered the race late? 

Let’s say that aside from those two special cases, each party wins all of the races ranked over 105%, and loses all those below.  That would create a net change of +4 for the Republicans.  They could pick up the two special cases as well.  That’s the upper bound – a safely filibuster proof majority.  I would imagine that as long as the economy keeps up, and there is no major balls-up in Iraq, the Republicans will likely pick up another seat or two.  That’s my prediction.


Posted by Buckethead on 06/02/05 at 05:19 PM
Partisan PoliticsPermalink

French martial valor through the ages

War

I just ran across this enchanting little bit over at Silflay Hraka.  Just the thing to brighten up a cloudy and blustery day:

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.


Posted by Buckethead on 06/02/05 at 04:18 PM
WarPermalink

You, too, can make a difference

Just So You Know

If, while reading through parts one and two of the mondo life advice post you think of any bits of wisdom or advice that you’ve learned, feel free to leave them in the comments.


Posted by Buckethead on 06/02/05 at 02:36 PM
Just So You KnowPermalink

Advice, Page 2

Just So You Know

This is part two of the advice file.  Page one can be found here.


Posted by Buckethead on 06/02/05 at 12:11 PM
Just So You KnowPermalink

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Advice

Just So You Know

My friend has a son who is turning 18 and graduating from high school.  He wanted to give his son some good advice, and so he started this list and passed it around until it got big enough to stand on its own.  Over this last weekend at the burn, one of my personal highlights was looking at, and contributing a bit to, this list.  It’s a long list, so look below the fold.


Posted by Buckethead on 06/01/05 at 05:57 PM
Just So You KnowPermalink

Gerrymandered, footloose and fancy-free

Partisan Politics

Last Friday, as I was desperately trying to get out of the office, I posted a link that I found on Kausfiles.  I hadn’t had time to do more than skim it, but it seemed interesting.  Johno felt differently:

The linked article has GOT to be the single stupidest post I have ever seen on the internet. Interesting? Sure. Like a dog licking his own sack is interesting.

Now, I generally trust Johno’s judgment, intuition, even his wild-ass-guesses.  So when I went back to read the article more thoroughly today (now that I have recovered from a long weekend of debauchery) I was expecting to find a big, steaming pile of poo.  And smelly poo, at that.

That turned out not to be the case.  First, arguing that Steve Sailer’s post is the stupidest post on the internet - even limiting the comparison to stupid posts that Johno’s seen… well, that’s a bit of a stretch.  I would say that the case is a bit deterministic, and that Sailer is to some extent using his assumptions to justify his arguments.  But…

There is something there.  I’ll get to that in a minute.  But first, thanks to the Maximum Leader we have this article by a credentialed political science professor.  [Maximum Leader gets 1.5 kudos for linking my I hate our freedom post, and an additional 3 kudos for agreeing with me instead of Geeklethal.] Professor Abramowitz writes about the effect of redistricting on the competiveness in congressional races.  Or rather, the lack thereof. 

The 2000-2002 redistricting cycle is often cited by critics of partisan redistricting as the best illustration of the dangers of gerrymandering because of the extensive use of sophisticated mapmaking technology in drawing district lines. However, between the 2000 and 2002 elections, the number of safe U.S. House districts only increased from 201 to 203 and the number of competitive districts only decreased from 123 to 116. Over the last three redistricting cycles--those that occurred between 1980 and 1982, 1990 and 1992, and 2000 and 2002--the number of safe districts increased by an average of only 8 while the number of competitive districts decreased by an average of only 2.

The Prof also points out that it makes little difference if courts or non-partisan commissions due the gerrymandering – most congressional seats remain stolidly non-competitive. 

The assumption that shifting control of redistricting from partisan state legislatures to nonpartisan commissions will dramatically increase the number of competitive districts is not supported by the record of such commissions. In the 2000-2002 round of redistricting, eight states with a total of 75 House districts used nonpartisan commissions to redraw their districts or had their districts redrawn by the courts. In the 2002 elections, 9 percent of House contests in those states were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points compared with 8 percent in all other states. Of 65 incumbents who ran for reelection in states whose districts were redrawn by the courts or nonpartisan commissions, not one was defeated.

Why is this the case?

If redistricting isn’t responsible for the low level of competition in House elections, what is? Two major trends have contributed to a decline in competition in recent years. First, House districts have become less competitive, but not because of redistricting. Most of the change has occurred between redistricting cycles. Between 1992 and 2000, for example, the number of safe districts increased from 156 to 201 while the number of competitive districts decreased from 157 to 123.

The other trend is the cost of running a serious congressional campaign, now significantly north of seven digits.  But what is the cause of increasingly homogenous house (and other) districts?  Let’s take a look:

For the same reasons that states and counties have become less competitive--Americans are increasingly living in communities and neighborhoods whose residents share their values and they are increasingly voting for candidates who reflect those values. Growing ideological polarization at the elite level has also made it easier for voters to choose a party identification on the basis of their ideological preferences. Southern and border states that once regularly elected conservative Democrats have been trending Republican while urban and suburban areas in the North that once regularly elected moderate and liberal Republicans have been trending Democratic. The result is that red states, counties, and districts are getting redder while blue states, counties, and districts are getting bluer.

The American population (noted for its extreme mobility even in the mid-1800s) is super- or hyper-mobile today.  People think nothing of moving thousands of miles to be in a place more congenial, remunerative, or whatever value is important to them.  I’m not sure about GL or Patton; but I know that Johno, Ross, and I have all made moves of at least half a thousand miles to get to a place that we thought would do us right.  That people would self-sort themselves by politics is not an odd thought.  Especially since political ideas often go hand in hand with any number of other attitudes.

As the state of California has become less competitive, so have its counties. Many of the state’s urban areas, including the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County, have become much more Democratic. At the same time, the state’s rural areas and small towns, like their counterparts in the rest of the nation, have been trending Republican. In the 1976 presidential election, 46 of California’s 58 counties were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points and those counties included 72 percent of the state’s voters. But in 2004, only 13 counties were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points and those counties included only 21 percent of the state’s voters. On the other hand, there were far more landslide counties in 2004 than in 1976 and a much larger percentage of California voters lived in landslide counties in 2004 than in 1976. In the 1976 presidential election only 2 counties in California were decided by a margin of more than 20 percentage points and those counties included only 8 percent of the state’s voters. But in 2004, 36 counties were decided by a margin of more than 20 percentage points and those counties included 64 percent of the state’s voters.

Given the one-sided partisan make-up of so much of the state, it would be difficult for even a panel of retired judges to draw a large number of competitive state legislative and congressional districts in California. And if you think some of the current districts are misshapen monstrosities, try to imagine what a competitive district in the San Francisco Bay Area would look like.  [emphasis mine –ed.]

So it seems that some sort of sorting process is going on.  Professor Abramowitz doesn’t get into the reasons for that much.  Which brings us back to Steve Sailer. 

In parts of the country where it is economical to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, you’ll generally find more Republicans.  You’ll find less in regions where it’s expensive.

It’s a stereotype that a mortgage, marriage, and babies tend to make people more conservative.  But it’s a true stereotype.

The arrow of causality points in both directions. Some family-oriented people move to family-friendly states, but the cost of forming a family also affects how many families are formed overall.

He’s making the case that (one of) the reasons that (potentially) conservative people move to red states is that it is easier to do what they want – get a house and spawn a family.  And also that more such conservatives will be formed because is it easier to get a house, a yard, a wife (or husband) and kids.  We all know the statistics about the difference in voting habits between single and married people, homeowners and renters, and so on.  I think that Sailer’s got a point that places encourage one side or the other, and that both affects the attitudes of those who live there, and filters who moves in an out.

One of the reasons that I would not likely be happy in a major urban center is that I would be surrounded by hard-core liberals.  I don’t want to live in a place without liberals, but I don’t want to live in a place without conservatives, either.  I wouldn’t have a house, a yard, or a safe environment for my boy.  Right now, one of the few things keeping me from moving to an even more “red” rural locale is the income that I can earn here, and few other places.  (And those places are even less family friendly than suburban DC.) Mrs. Buckethead mentions at least once a week how nice it would be to move to New Hampshire, up near the White Mountains and away from the Massholes.

So I can feel the logic in what Sailer is talking about.  It’s not the only thing, but it’s not a steaming pile of poo.


Posted by Buckethead on 06/01/05 at 04:12 PM
Partisan PoliticsPermalink

In case you thought all the “Deep Throat” jokes were played out…

Just So You Know

Best headline of the moment comes courtesy of the AP:

“Bush Anxious to Learn More of Deep Throat”

Amen, brother.


Posted by GeekLethal on 06/01/05 at 02:02 PM
Just So You KnowPermalink

Have you driven a Ford lately, you big queer-lover?

It'll Be a Cold Day in Hell

In a puzzling display of hubris, the “good” “Christians” of the American Family Association have announced a boycott of the Ford Motor Corporation because of that company’s policy of offering domestic partner benefits and donating money to gay rights causes.

“From redefining family to include homosexual marriage, to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda, to forcing managers to attend diversity training on how to promote the acceptance of homosexuality...to sponsoring Gay Pride Parades, Ford leads the way,” said a notice on the group’s Web site.

Ford vice president of human resources Joe Laymon told the Detroit News that the company “values all people, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and cultural or physical differences.”

Tupelo, Miss.-based AFA told the News it e-mailed an announcement about the Ford boycott to 2.2 million supporters.

The group said last month that it was ending its boycott of Disney because of some signs of change at the media conglomerate and because, “We feel after nine years of boycotting Disney we have made our point.”

Yeah… made your point.

The AFA recently ended a nine-year boycott of The Walt Disney Co. over Disney’s decision to extend benefits to same-sex couples and promote gay-related events at its theme parks. The boycott appeared to have little effect, since Disney reported higher earnings and increased theme park attendance during that time.

Yep. I suppose they did in fact make a point. Point well taken, gentlemen.

I hereby declare awkward, vaguely shameful missionary-style sex between married parners as “driving a Ford.”

Hat tip: John Cole. Be sure to read his original post for a juicy punchline at the expense of another AFA boycott.


Posted by Johno on 06/01/05 at 10:30 AM
It'll Be a Cold Day in HellPermalink
Page 5 of 5 pages « First  <  3 4 5