he band I'm in, Money or Candy, has been working on recording our songs for a while. It's been sort of a long process that's been complicated by our schedules and the fact that we don't have regular access to a recording studio. Or, for that matter, any access to a recording studio.

Although recording things like acoustic guitars and vocals can be done almost anywhere--my spare bedroom, for example--louder instruments like drums and electric guitars are more challenging. For this first song, we did some recording in a garage, in a rehearsal studio, and in my aforementioned spare bedroom. Our goal was just to come up with something presentable, but I have to say that I'm extremely pleased with the results. It was definitely worth the work and frustration.

We're working on recording more songs now and should have more for you to listen to soon. In the mean time, please click over to our Myspace page (yes, we have a Myspace page--they make it really easy to post and share music) and listen to our first recording, "Stock Photos."

Please let us know what you think at our Facebook page or on Twitter. Or post comments here.

Either way, thanks for listening.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (33)| Filed under Money or Candy

read The Lost Symbol under the same circumstances as I read all of Dan Brown's other books: on a cross-country flight, desperately trying anything at all to make the thing seem shorter. In that situation, I always think that an unchallenging, easy to follow, infuriatingly awful book is the way to go. So when I was waiting in the Milwaukee Airport to go home for Christmas, I was delighted to see that Dan Brown's latest monstrosity had been released in paperback, because there's no fucking way I'd pay hardcover prices for one of these things.

I bought the thing expecting it to be terrible. I would have been disappointed if it had been anything better than bad. But The Lost Symbol wasn't terrible or even bad. It was the most infuriatingly awful book I've ever read. Bar none.

I could complain about how annoying it is that Robert Langdon has an almost pathological need to lecture, even while he's being chased by bad guys with guns. Or I could bitch about the fact that Brown apparently thinks that associating a name with one or two quirks is the same thing as creating characters. Robert Langdon is claustrophobic and has a Mickey Mouse watch. Peter Solomon wants to keep his secrets at all costs. Katherine Solomon puts her hair behind her ears when she's nervous. Every time we read about Katherine Solomon, she's putting her hair behind her ears, as if Brown wants us to think "This character is so fleshed out, I feel like I know her. For example, I know that she's nervous right now because she always tucks her hair behind her ears when she's nervous. Wow, Dan Brown sure can write." What the fuck? Does Katherine Solomon never just have to get her fucking hair out of her eyes?

OK, right, I could bitch about all of that. But that's all secondary and, besides, that's exactly what you should expect when you pick up a Dan Brown book. No, this post is so that I can bitch about this book's plot. This plot is so nonsensical that I honestly cannot imagine how it actually got written, edited, and released in this form. Let me walk you through the plot of this fucking book. Spoilers follow, show you want to read this thing for yourself for whatever reason.

Peter Solomon is a billionaire Freemason. He's also Robert Langdon's father figure and mentor. Why haven't we heard about him before in any of the other Robert Langdon books? Who cares. Move on. Oh, right, Peter Solomon. Peter had a son, Zachary. Zachary was a huge fuck up. When he was eighteen, Peter insisted on giving him a choice: Zach could either take his inheritance, which apparently consisted of a nearly inexhaustible amount of money, or a small stone pyramid. For reals. Zach, being a fuck up but not an idiot, takes the money. He uses the money to buy yachts and hookers and blow. He eventually ends up in a European prison. Peter goes to the prison, where the warden offers to release Zach in exchange for a bribe. Peter refuses to pay the bribe and leaves. One of the prisoners overhears this conversation and hatches a plan. Days later, a body that is apparently Zach's turns up, everyone believes he's dead, and everyone goes on with their lives.

Until one day when Peter and his family are at their secluded supermansion. A masked figure breaks into the house and demands that Peter hand over the small stone pyramid. Peter refuses, so the masked figure kills Peter's wife and flees. Peter chases the intruder, shoots him, and watches as he falls off a cliff into a frozen river. The body's never found, but everyone just assumes he died.

Later, Robert Langdon goes to Washington, D.C. Through a series of stupid events, he ends up with the small stone pyramid. He discovers that the pyramid is the key to unraveling the mystery of a legendary Masonic treasure. According to the legend, the treasure is hidden somewhere in Washington, and it is something that can turn a mortal man into a god. Literally. Throughout his adventures, various figures--including Peter Solomon--make it clear to Robert Langdon that the pyramid and the secret it leads to cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands because, if it did, it would lead to unimaginably bad consequences for everything and everyone and everything. The secret is Just. That. Powerful.

We discover that the masked man that broke into Peter's house is Mal'akh, a crazy guy who really wants to become a god. He kidnaps Peter and tortures him in order to find out about the pyramid. When that's not enough, he kidnaps Peter's sister, Katherine, and tortures her, telling Peter that he'll stop when he reveals the secret of the pyramid. At no point does Peter even consider giving up the secret. It's Just. That. Important.

Eventually, we find out that Mal'akh and Zach are one and the same (fucking surprise surprise). Mal'akh's plan fails. Everything is cool. But Peter decides that Robert Landon deserves to know the truth about the Masonic treasure, so he blindfolds him, takes him to where it's hidden, unblindfolds him, and then tells him that they're at the Washington Monument. Then he tells him that the super-secret, super-powerful Masonic treasure is a copy of the Bible hidden inside the subterranean cornerstone of the Washington Monument. The Bible is sealed inside the cornerstone, which is itself buried under the monument, meaning that it is completely inaccessible. And it is literally nothing more than a really old copy of the Bible. It's just a normal, old, dusty book. It doesn't have magic powers. And Peter Solomon knew this the whole time.

So let's review. A masked gunman broke into Peter Solomon's house and demanded the pyramid. Peter refused to give it up and, as a result, his wife dies. The same person then kidnaps him and tortures him in order to get to the secret the pyramid points to. Peter doesn't cooperate. The bad guy then kidnaps Peter's sister and tortures her, but still Peter refuses to give up the deep, meaningful secret of the pyramid. Peters friends tell us repeatedly throughout the book that they know with absolute certainty that Peter would rather die than risk the secret of the Masonic treasure being revealed. That's how important it is that this thing stay a secret.

And then we find out that, at each of these points, Peter has been aware that the pyramid might as well say, "Check into a hotel and look in the nightstand drawer." In fact, it might be better if you went and bought a new copy of the Bible because the one that's in the Washington Monument is sealed up so tight that no one can ever get to it.

Literally the entire plot is driven by the idea that the Masonic secret is so powerful and dangerous that it must be kept hidden at all costs. But the guy who's primarily responsible for keeping the secret knows throughout the story that the secret is neither powerful nor dangerous, yet he still insists that it be kept secret. Until the end, at which point he decides that he might as well just tell people.

That's the plot of the book. Or, rather, that is the hole around which Dan Brown attempts to build a plot.

It honestly makes me angry that talented writers can't get published while Dan Brown is out there stringing words together at random and making millions of dollars because of it.

And it makes me even angrier that I've contributed to his stack of money. Somewhere in his house is a roll of Scotch tape or something that my buying of his books paid for. I hope Dan Brown chokes on that roll of tape.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (16)| Filed under Book Reviews, Funny Shit, Rants About Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry

just read a story about how Answers in Genesis, the geniuses behind the Creation Museum in Kentucky, are now planning to build a full-sized recreation of Noah's Ark. While I think that's just fine, here's what I think is less fine: Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear is the guy who made the announcement about the Ark and how great it is while standing behind a podium with the Kentucky state seal. Oh, and the whole thing is getting tax credits under the state's economic development law that would allow the builders of the Ark to recoup up to 25 percent of the cost of the project from taxpayer money.

I suppose that the rationale behind giving the group the tax cuts--basically that, regardless of its religious theme, the thing is likely to draw lots of people to Kentucky that otherwise wouldn't have gone--makes sense. And it may even make enough sense to keep it from being an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government. I simply don't know that area of law well enough to make any sort of pronouncement about that. But, even if the whole thing is legal--which is vaguely troubling in and of itself--I've got some concerns.

First off, the Governor tries to justify the whole thing as being "a theme park." That makes the whole thing sound more like the Noah's Ark water park in the Dells, which has an overtly religious name, but which has the primary purpose of being a water park, not trying to convince anyone of the truth of one particular religion. The Answers in Genesis webpage, though, specifically disavows the notion that this thing is going to be a theme or amusement park. So, right from the start, the Governor is misrepresenting the project in an attempt to make it sound much more secular than it is.

Second, the first question reporters ask the governor is something along the lines of "Hey, isn't this blatantly unconstitutional?" The governor's response is simply, "Not at all." He goes on to say that this is merely an application for a theme park, again incorrectly conjuring images of rollercoasters and cotton candy. The Governor also tries to justify the project by saying that some people might not like Nascar, but he's not going to stop them from investing in creating more tourism in the state. The next reporter then points out that the Nascar obviously doesn't violate the Lemon test. After making it clear that he has no idea what that is, the Governor defaults to insisting that this project is totally cool and that people should stop harshing his mellow.

Then, just a few seconds later, someone asks whether there will be dinosaurs on the Ark. A guy from the Ark Encounter steps up and says that there will be and that, "Part of our mission . . . is to show the feasibility of how Noah would have been able to take care of animals for an extended period of time, so the Ark is being designed with that in mind."

Awesome, so now we've got tax payers partially funding a project the purpose of which is at least partially to help religious zealots prove that a contentious story in the Bible is literally true.

How could there be a problem with that?

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)| Filed under Legal Rants, Philosophical Rants, Political Rants, Rants on the News

watched Sarah Palin's Alaska. Not because I wanted to but because I wanted to be able to report to you, my two readers. So here's the lowdown: Sarah Palin's grasp on reality is tenuous at best, and this show presents no evidence to the contrary.

At several points throughout the show, Ms. Palin complains about her nosy neighbor, an author writing an unauthorized book about her. She talks about how Todd and his friends built a fourteen-foot fence to make it harder for the neighbor to look into their yard. I can sympathize with not wanting to have your moments with your family spied on by some creepy guy. Even a public figure like Sarah Palin deserves some privacy. But here's the thing: she was complaining about this neighbor wanting to violate the privacy of her back yard while talking to a reality-TV camera crew in her back yard. You can't complain about looking into your house from his perfectly legal vantage point while having a camera crew follow you and your children around in order to get footage for a nationally televised reality TV show. That's just fucking crazy! The logic--or rather anti-logic--of that made the gears inside my head grind and squeal, it was so stupid. I guess it all makes sense to her because, hey, she's getting paid to parade around in front of the camera crew.

But that wasn't the worst. The worst was the scene where Todd and Sarah go climbing near Mt. McKinley. Unbelievable annoyingness ensues. Palin, who reminds us several times that she's extremely afraid of heights, decides to climb up a rock face. It takes her for-fucking-ever. At one point, Palin gets stuck at a certain spot. The next scene has the subtitle "Forty-five minutes later." Sarah hasn't moved.

It's not that she's a bad climber; it's that she's the most obnoxious climber in the world. Although, to her credit, she makes it to the top, she complains literally every step of the way. And she does it in the most whiny, nasally voice you've ever heard. It's the kind of sound that will haunt your nightmares.

But here's the thing that really blows my mind. I can only imagine that Palin demanded that she get final cut on these episodes or, at the very least, that TLC portray her positively. So it follows that she believes that she was being portrayed positively. So although she actually came across as a nagging, whiny, obnoxious, spoiled, unintelligent brat of a woman, in her mind, she's being portrayed as some sort of soccer-mom messiah. The cognitive dissonance is making me dizzy.

I cannot find the basis to believe that Sarah Palin is anything other than a moron. She cannot ever be allowed to have nuclear launch codes in her possession. But as a reality-TV star--as someone, in other words, for average Americans to judge and laugh at--Sarah Palin is perfect.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)| Filed under Television Reviews

ear Leaders of the Democratic Party,

I just want to start this off by explaining to you that, while you don't perfectly encapsulate my political beliefs, you are the party that I'm more likely to vote for. Sometimes I think that you guys fly off the handle with crazy liberal ideas, but for the most part, you are the party I'd like to see in power. Having said that, though, I have one small criticism, and I think I can sum it up this way: Why are you such a bunch of fucking failures?

Let me lay this all out for you. You took over a country that had been run by fucking morons for eight years. That administration's deregulatory policies allowed the country to slide into the worst recession in nearly a century. Millions of jobs were lost. Then, that same administration set in motion a series of bailouts that totaled hundreds of billions of dollars.

At the same time, that administration allowed the single worst act of terrorism on American soil ever to occur. While it would be unfair to blame September 11th on George W. Bush, it is not unfair to blame his reaction on him. He actively misled the American public about weapons of mass destruction, thereby instigating a war we were not prepared to win in a region of the world he did not have any functional understanding of and in a country that had no direct relationship to the terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, he actively undermined numerous key provisions of the United States Constitution in the name of homeland security while accomplishing little more than making air travel a giant pain in the ass.

In the two years that the Democrats have been in power,* you have--despite yourselves--managed to pass sweeping health-care-reform legislation, significantly slow the loss of jobs, stabilize the economy, save two major American employers from financial annihilation, and put the end of two wars within reach. Oh, and you also made sure that the taxpayers were reasonably likely to at least break even on the bailouts you authorized. And you did this all while working against a Republican Congressional delegation that did little more than systematically disagree with everything you wanted to do.

And, somehow, you managed to let the Republicans paint you as a bunch of ineffectual losers who were steering the country in the wrong direction. And, what's worse, it seemed like you were falling all over yourselves to get as far away from these accomplishments as possible. And for that, you are all a bunch of idiots. So let me tell you how you should have handled the criticisms you encountered in this election cycle.

The economy and jobs
Two years is hardly enough time to counteract the effects of a global economy that was in a tailspin. Having said that, we--the Democrats--managed to pull the country out of a recession and get the economy growing again. While we haven't gained as many jobs as anyone would like, we have prevented the loss of millions of additional jobs. But for the auto-company bailouts, for example, it is very likely that hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan would be out of work. More importantly, it is exactly the policies that the Republicans are running on--smaller government, unregulated free markets--that allowed the mortgage crisis to happen. And it is that mortgage crisis that is directly responsible for state putting us where we are today.

The Republicans were in charge of the nation's balance sheet for eight years. In that time, they squandered a Democrat-created budget surplus and allowed the banks and other big businesses to put the American middle class out of work. For them to run on a platform of fiscal responsibility and job creation would be hilarious if it wasn't such a blatant attempt to use your fear and anxiety for their own political gain.

"Obamacare"
This is America, the richest and most prosperous country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. Our achievements in science, technology, and medicine are staggering. But there are people in this country who die from simple, treatable illnesses. We should be ashamed of this. We should be embarrassed that, in the country with the most billionaires in the world, people die who could have lived had they received the proper treatment. In fact, we shouldn't just be ashamed and embarrassed, we should recognize this fact as representing a moral responsibility: no American citizen should ever die simply because he or she can't afford treatment. No American senior citizen should ever have to choose between paying for utilities and paying for medicine. No American child should ever have to roll the dice on surviving through a life-threatening illness.

The health-care bill we passed brought us closer to fulfilling that moral imperative while ensuring that we maintain the values that have fueled our success to this point--rewarding innovation and protecting freedom of choice.

Anyone who tells you that this law represents a government takeover of health care is lying to you. So is anyone who tries to make you afraid of death panels. Don't be mislead: this law is about ensuring that everyone has the best possible health care--and that means protecting your ability to choose what the best health-care option for you is.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
The men and women who serve in our armed forces are some of the best examples of what it means to be an American. By volunteering to law their lives on the line for their country, they have proven that they are brave and selfless beyond words.

There are thousands--perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands--of men and women who want to serve their country in the same way but who are prohibited from doing so because they have made the private--and perfectly legal--choice to be open about who they are. These men and women are not asking for special treatment or to be held to different standards. Instead, they are asking for the opportunity to put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of their fellow soldiers, the mission at hand, and the good of the American people. These are capable, intelligent, strong men and women who want to risk their lives to help make sure that you and your children can sleep safely at night. For us to systematically tell them that they are unworthy to serve us is insulting to them, it dishonors our armed services, and it is inconsistent with the idea that all people are created equal.

The Tea Party
It is encouraging to see American citizens exercise their right to become involved in their government and attempt to bring about a change they desire. But it is discouraging to see any popular movement based on disinformation and lies. Our president is not Hitler, and it is beyond doubt that he is a natural-born American citizen. Barack Obama is not a Muslim or a socialist. The Constitution does not contain a clear directive that our laws be based on any religious text. But Article VI, paragraph 3 of that document does say that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Neither bailouts nor health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional. But wireless warrant tapping may be. Indefinite detention of terror suspects without charge may be. Suspending the right of habeas corpus is unconstitutional. And it is absolutely unconstitutional for any American citizen held in federal custody not to be read his rights.

We encourage people to voice their concerns, and to petition their government for the redress of grievances. But we also encourage people to read and understand the Constitution and abandon dehumanizing, insulting, fear-based attacks.

My point, leaders of the Democratic Party, is that you have points to make. Make them! You have ways to defend yourselves from these ridiculous attacks. Use them! There is a difference between acknowledging areas that need improvement and apologizing for not being made of pure magic. Understand that!

You cannot excite an electorate by folding. And you've been the sorriest bunch of timid poker players I've ever seen. Turn this around. Or you will pay the price in 2012.

Sincerely,
Ismael Tapia II

*And let me just say that I use the term "power" loosely here. The fact of the matter is that, while I generally agree with the direction in which you'd like to take the country, your ability to steer in that direction has been questionable at best. You nominally have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but you can't pass several of your most important policies? That's idiotic. I'm willing to concede that some of you made tough votes based on what you thought was right. I respect that. But the rest of you made votes based on what you thought was likely to keep you in power, and that is antithetical to what the Democratic Party is supposed to be about. So fuck you if that's what you did.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 12:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)| Filed under Philosophical Rants, Political Rants, Rants About Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry, Rants on the News, Reviews

'm a big fan of actual journalism where reporters aren't afraid to be assertive and press candidates for real answers to tough questions. I hate it when interviews turn into things where a reporter asks questions and the person being interviewed uses the silences between questions to spout off generic talking points and then the reporter moves on as if what he'd just heard had anything to do with what he'd asked. I agree with people like Jon Stewart that the lazy, I-don't-want-to-ruffle-any-feathers approach to journalism in the modern media is bullshit.

But I also think this CNN article is bullshit. In the video, Anderson Cooper and some random reporter talk about how ridiculous it is that Christine O'Donnell sidestepped a specific question about her use of campaign funds. If you watch the video, though, what happens is that the reporter asks her about it, and she says unequivocally that neither she nor her campaign have misused funds. She does not deny specific allegations, but makes it clear that, in her opinion, her campaign has been ethical. If I were her lawyer and my interest was solely in protecting her from criminal liability, that is a much more detailed response than I would have recommended.

But that's not the end of the story. The story is that Ms. O'Donnell "sidestepped" a later question from the reporter in which he asked her to address a specific allegation of misused funds. With her handlers shielding her, Ms. O'Donnell gave the typical "no comment." Then they talk about how ridiculous it is that she would do that and what an awful person she is.

Except that CNN--and every other news network--lets people get away with that kind of shit all the time. Not to mention that I think it's unfair to say that she sidestepped a question when she actually answered it, at least in the sense that her words were syntactically related to the words in the question. It may not have been the most satisfying--or truthful--answer, but she didn't sidestep it. She didn't sidestep the follow-up, either; she just refused to answer it. Again, if I were her attorney, that's exactly what I would have advised her to do and it's what any politician facing an investigation and potential criminal charges would do.

But in this instance--and not in many others that I'm aware of--CNN decided that her evasive responses were themselves the story. CNN should press the people they interview in all cases, but the fact that they're making such a big deal of it in only this case casts some doubt on their objectivity. More importantly, it makes them look like bullies--Ms. O'Donnell is the easiest politician to make fun of since Sarah Palin, and going after the low-hanging fruit is just pathetic.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)| Filed under Philosophical Rants, Rants on the News

he idea that private citizens shouldn't build a community center on land they own, regardless of its proximity to the place where something really awful happened simply because they adhere to the same religion that the people who did the awful thing claimed to follow, is entirely without support in law or logic. If you don't agree with that, then please comment. I'm inviting you to comment because, although I've tried, I haven't been able to find a single coherent argument for why there shouldn't be a Muslim community center near the former World Trade Center. If you can offer one that isn't based on ignorance and fear, I'd be extremely interested to hear it.

I admit, though, that I'm skeptical that such an argument can be made. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with someone on Facebook about this issue. I tried not to be a jerk while asserting my position. I may not have succeeded at that, but I think that I won the argument. Although I'm open to considering non-stupid arguments, I think this argument typifies the stupid non-support people have asserted for their "Ground Zero Mosque" opposition. I want to excerpt this thing because I think the person I'm arguing with--a friend of someone I knew in high school--fails utterly. And I think that's amusing and possibly enlightening.

The whole thing started when my high-school acquaintance posted a link to some article about the controversy. Then someone I don't know posted this:

In the Muslim religion, they build things to show that they have conquered it. That is what they are trying to do and it makes me angry.

Now, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet that this person had seen this video or had heard something very similar to what it says:

You know what's stupid about the video, other than the sinister music should be enough to let you know that you're watching pure bullshit? Here's what's stupid about it: even if we grant that Muslims build mosques at every place they conquer, that doesn't mean anything. Because you know who else builds their religious buildings on lands they've conquered? FUCKING EVERYONE. I'm not completely sure, but I bet that two things happened fairly quickly after the Pilgrims came to America: they killed a Native American and they built a church. Whenever one culture moves to a new area--whether violently or not--they bring their culture and religion with them. It's not a victory thing, it's just what people do. Do we really expect all Muslims in the world to have to head back to the Middle East for each of their five daily prayers?

I pointed this out on Facebook. I got a response:

It isn't my opinion, it is what they do, research it before you say that it is wrong. To put a mosque there is a slap in the face to Americans. That is like going to a temple and sticking swastika's all over it. Same thing, same slap. Did you not read that the guy who wants to do this is a radical? You actually think he is doing this to be peaceful? If you think so, then you are a fool. He is trying to prove a point.

So now the guy's a radical. I honestly didn't know too much about Imam Rauf before this conversation, so I googled him. Here's part of what I posted after some cursory research:

I talked about being able to separate radicals from peaceful believers. So let's talk about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man who is apparently behind the community center. A quick glance at his Wikipedia entry--and I agree non-sarcastically that Wikipedia is the ultimate arbiter of truth--Mr. Rauf has been fairly critical of some parts of America's past and he called America an "accessory" to the September 11th attacks.

I think that his criticisms of America's actions during wartime are fair, especially his contention that it was questionable for America to bomb Hiroshima. His position on America's role in the September 11th attacks and his contention that Osama bin Laden was "made in the USA" are more controversial, but not radical. Although the situation is very complicated and I don't fully understand it myself, what I think is fairly non-controversial is that, America helped fund mujahideen soldiers in Afghanistan in their efforts to beat back the Soviets. At one point, President Reagan called the mujahideen "freedom fighters." Osama bin Laden was one of the members of the mujahideen during that time and may or may not have received training from the CIA. He was, however, absolutely a member of the organization that predates al-Qaida and that received American financial support.

America played a part in supporting the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida grew out of that organization. I think that Mr. Rauf's claims that bin Laden was "made in the USA" is a huge rhetorical leap, but to the extent that he meant that America indirectly planted the seed that would become al-Qaida, I believe he is arguably correct.

All of this is to say that, while Mr. Rauf may have expressed unpopular opinions, he is not a radical. Indeed, his comments suggesting that terrorism and the killing of innocents is not in keeping with Muslim teachings strongly suggests otherwise.

Then came one of my favorite responses in the exchange. Emphasis is mine:

This isn't an intellectual thing. This is about principle. It is not RIGHT to put a mosque up where 9/11 happened. That would be the same as the Japanese wanting to build a shrine over the USS Arizona.

I pointed out that it's not at all the same thing as the Japanese building a Pearl Harbor memorial, and then I asked a question:

[G]iven that there is no connection between the September 11th terrorists and the community center other than the terrorists' claims to have acted in the name of Islam, what is it that makes it wrong to allow these people to build their building?

The response identified three things that make Imam Rauf a radical:

He believes in Sharia law and that OUR AMERICAN court system should allow for it as well. He never condemned 9/11. He agrees with Hamas.

I linked to this article on the Huffington Post written by Imam Rauf about Sharia law. What I take away from it is that Imam Rauf, as a religious guy, wants to follow his religion's law. And he wants others to follow it, too. I don't like that position, but the position that non-believers should act like believers isn't exactly radical in a country that prohibits people who love each other from getting married just because that's what it says we should do in certain religious texts. Imam Rauf also suggests that enforcing Sharia law through stoning of women, for example, isn't in keeping with Sharia's focus on "justice and fairness." The merits of Sharia law are questionable, but I don't think it's fair to say that the guy's a radical because he believes in his religion's laws.

While I was unable to find any source where Imam Rauf specifically condemned the September 11th attacks, I was able to find several statements he made condemning terrorism generally. He told 60 Minutes that "[f]anaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam." He told a radio interviewer that "[t]he targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong." Again, I don't see a basis for calling the guy a radical.

Finally, Imam Rauf did say that he did not want to put himself in a position where anyone--including Hamas--would see him as an adversary. He condemned terrorism, however, and identified himself as a supporter of Israel. I think that's an extremely pansy position to take, and I don't really respect it, but I think it's a huge stretch to say the guy agrees with Hamas.

I pressed for some support for the position that Imam Rauf is an anti-American radical. This was the response, which is my absolute favorite of the exchange:

The things that are documentated that he has said and what he has written in his book. I don't have to prove anything to you. Most American's know this guy is a radical trying to prove a point and because America's laws are for freedom of religion and assembly the radicals are using it against us. You are obviously a liberal and will never see the light as to what is true and good. You see things in gray and I see it in black or white. I don't think that there is ever a basis for a gray area and you have based your arguement on what you "think" he means.

This person thinks that seeing things in black and white is a virtue. This person thinks that because I asked for support for these propositions, that I am "obviously" a liberal who will never understand truth and goodness. This person believes that liberals can't understand truth and goodness.

This person is extremely comfortable with the original Star Wars where we know beyond all doubt that Luke Skywalker is the good guy and Darth Vader is the bad guy. But this person is completely confused by the later movies. As soon as Darth Vader becomes anything less than completely evil--the exact moment at which he becomes a person rather than a caricature--he becomes completely unbelievable to this person. This person cannot conceive that someone could change or evolve or be conflicted in even a slight way. In this person's mind, the delineations between good and evil are as clear in the real world as they are in a child's cartoon. That's not just stunningly simplistic, it's fucking scary.

I asked which page of which of the several books that Imam Rauf has written supports the claims that he's an anti-American radical. There were no further responses.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)| Filed under Existential Nonsense, Philosophical Rants, Political Rants, Rants on the News

irst off, Google Maps says that I'm spelling this place's name correctly--there is a place on Verona Road that is apparently a house owned by a guy named Gyro. Or something.

In any event, Taste of Madison was this weekend, and L-Dawg and I had but one goal: to find an amazing gyro. As it turns out, the best gyro of the day was the first one we had. And it was from a place called Gyro's House, which is located in the Mobil gas station at Verona and the Beltline. This is both strange (it's in a fucking gas station!) and unfortunate (I drive past that intersection approximately a thousand times a week).

Chelsadilla and I were feeling lazy about making dinner the other night, so I talked her into getting take-out gyros from a gas station with me. And it was a hell of an adventure.

First of all, the place is built in to a gas station. But not just any gas station, no, this place is built into a gas station that's about half a second from Allied Drive, which is universally recognized as Madison's sketchiest neighborhood. The Dilla was talking about how sketchy the place was even as we were parking. I reassured her that the people smoking cigarettes in their pajamas at 5:30pm were totally not something to worry about and not at all an indication of sketchiness.

The Mobil gas station is your average gas station. Then, in the back, there's a counter and some big menus. This place has gyros, fried chicken, and fish fry. It was like South meets Mediterranean, but it was still appetizing.

Although there was a lit-up "Open" sign, no one was standing at the counter. We waited for a few minutes, but no one poked their head out from behind the curtain behind the counter. Then someone pointed out that there was a bell we had to ring. So I rang it. Some guy poked his head out from behind the curtain and told us he'd be with us in a minute. At least ten minutes passed before we saw him again. I contemplated ringing the bell again, but chelsadilla wouldn't let me. Still, two gentleman who'd spent way too much money on Sean John clothing couldn't stand the wait and rang the bell. I felt bad for the guy behind the curtain because it seemed like he was the only one working but still--we waited more than ten minutes before we even ordered. Chelsadilla kept commenting on the sketchiness, and I kept reassuring her.

We finally ordered. That was straightforward enough. Then we waited some more. While we were waiting, a guy who was about three-quarters my height came up to us. He whispered to me and held something up. He pulled a ring out of a bag and said something like, "You wanna buy that pretty girl something pretty?" He showed me a ring. "It's real, check it out!" The ring was obviously fake or stolen or both. "No thanks," I said, and he walked over to the other people waiting for their food. He pulled out other rings and necklaces and all manner of contraband. The other guys took some of it. I'm not sure if they bought anything.

Our food finally came out. We took it and got out of there. I looked around the parking lot and realized that this place wasn't quaint or colorful--it was fucking sketchy.

Our food was great. The gyro meat was delicious, as was the yogurt sauce. The veggies were fairly fresh. I would eat the food again in a heartbeat.

But I might be armed when I order.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)| Filed under Funny Shit, Restaurant and Bar Reviews

s a guitarist myself, I appreciate guitar virtuosity--or extreme proficiency on any instrument, really--probably more than most people. I know how hard it was for me to learn how to play the most difficult, fastest, most intricate thing I can play, so I respect the amount of talent and hard work that goes into completely turning an instrument into an extension of yourself. Learning an instrument is something like learning a new language: I'm conversant in guitar, but seeing someone who can play guitar as well as Shakespeare could "play" English is extremely impressive.

To a point.

As in writing, context is extremely important in music. In order for any particular moment of music to have any emotional resonance at all, it has to have some sort of relationship to the music before and after it. A chord can have a completely different effect depending on what chord it follows. Everything from tempo to phrasing to what key you're playing in and what tone you're using matters.

In the right context, a guitar solo can make a song. "Comfortably Numb" and "November Rain" would be decent songs without the solos, but the musical interludes--at least for me--define them and make them some of my favorites. On the other hand, though, those same solos--played in the same way, over the same chords, by the same people--wouldn't be very impressive at all if they existed only as unconnected snippets of music. In order for solos to be something other than just musical wanking, they have to be part of a cohesive whole.

Shredding sucks because it represents the elevation of a solo--even if it's ten minutes long--over the song. It's the climax without the backstory. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how impressive someone's playing is or how extensive his skills are: it's all just bullshit unless there's some reason for it. People don't generally get excited by the prospect of watching someone show off just for the sake of showing off.

I sometimes get annoyed at how wanky some fairly mainstream music is. But today I saw something that blew my mind in terms of the disparity between the talent on display and the artistic merit of the end product. Frankly, you have to see this thing to believe it:

It's insulting that he rips off a Randy Rhoads given that Ozzy's former guitarist was, in my opinion, one of the most technically proficient guitarists ever but he almost always ensured that his soloing served the song.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)| Filed under Music Reviews, Philosophical Rants, Rants About Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry

or another five minutes, anyway. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who wished me a happy birthday, and especially to chelsadilla for going so far out of her way to do awesome stuff for me.

My birthday got under way last night at around midnight when I demanded that, because it was past midnight, chelsadilla should give me my present. She insisted that anticipation was important for some reason, and I took the position that it was August 24 and, goddammit, it was my birthday. I also threatened that if she didn't play by my rules for my birthday, i.e., it's your birthday at midnight, I wouldn't play by her rules for hers, i.e., I would tell her what I got her for her birthday three days in advance. She caved and gave me my gift. And it was awesome. There was a Superman card that played the Superman theme, a toy Mr. Pricklepants from Toy Story 3 (for NO REASON), and an iPod Touch. I'd mentioned a few times that I wanted something like an iPod, but I didn't think chelsadilla'd listened or cared. I guess I was wrong. Then chelsadilla stayed up with me while I updated the software on the iPod and loaded some music on to it. For some reason, having a wi-fi enabled MP3 player still seems sorta crazy to me.

All of this was in addition to some smoked sea salt she'd gotten me while she was in California a few weeks ago.

Chelsadilla had offered to treat me to dinner. She'd asked where I wanted to go, and I said that I've always wanted to go to The Melting Pot, but that I'd be more than happy to split the check with her there because it can be sorta expensive. She insisted that we go there and on paying herself. I wasn't entirely comfortable with the idea, but we went.

We had an appetizer cheese course, then the main course--which consisted of various meets that you cooked yourself in simmering red wine--and then a dessert course. Honestly, the main course was the least good. The cheese fondue was pretty good, and the dessert was fucking amazing. I have no idea how much chelsadilla spent, but I'm sure it was too much. I honestly don't know how The Melting Pot justifies its prices. I think half the price would be appropriate for what you get. As it stands, I don't know how often I'd go back.

At the end of dinner, chelsadilla snatched the check away and reached in to her purse and discovered, to her shock, that she didn't have her wallet. She immediately started apologizing for ruining my birthday. I told her it was ok, that I would pay and she could pay me back if she wanted. She started crying. It was kinda cute. I wasn't at all upset that she'd forgotten her wallet, but it was funny how upset she got. In the end, she left and came back to the apartment to get her wallet while I waited at the restaurant. All in all, a small price to pay for dinner and a good time.

So, yeah, my girlfriend set a high bar for birthday celebrations. I'm up to the challenge, though, and I think I can outdo her for her next birthday. I'm certainly going to try, anyway.

Posted by Ismael Tapia II at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)| Filed under Existential Nonsense, Fun Shit I've Done, Restaurant and Bar Reviews