MUSKRAT HATE

Phillip Coons is wondering why everybody hates the song “Muskrat Love,” since he rather likes it.

I can’t speak for everybody, Phillip, only myself, and I’ll say that I really don’t hate it; I just know lots of people that do. Musically, it’s a good song, well constructed, with a good, hummable melody. It’s just that . . . well, it’s just that . . .

. . . it’s just that people don’t find muskrats terribly romantic.

I kinda resent that, personally. I sorta look like a muskrat myself–facial hair, a big, bluff nose, pudgy, I waddle . . . but I do understand why most people don’t find muskrats very sexy. Although, in the interest of fairness, it must be said that some people in Detroit feel differently.

Anyway, it’s been a while since I did a list, so here’s ten songs I find much, much more annoying than “Muskrat Love.”
–> read more

WELL, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG

James Joyner reports on a Kansas statutory rape case that was remanded to a lower court “for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas.” James is justifiably perplexed:

Now, wait a minute. The ruling from Lawrence was:

Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.

So, it was a due process finding, not an equal protection argument, that won the day. Further, Kennedy ends with,

This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17-18.

Well, this case does involve a minor. Who, by definition, can not give consent. Which is why we have statutory rape laws.

Now, granted, a 17-year sentence seems rather excessive for oral sex. And I’d need to know more about the case in question before I’d want to pronounce a sentence here. But I’m baffled that Laurence v. Texas would control here. And, furthermore, even if we now believe adult homosexuals have a privacy right to do as they will behind closed doors, that does not mean they have the right to rape small boys. Further, I would argue, given that heinous as rape is, homosexual rape of heterosexuals is even worse. This ruling is truly bizarre.

My thoughts? It may be truly bizarre, but I do believe the Supremes recognize the particular can of worms they’ve opened here. I believe what they may be asking the lower court to do is examine if the sentence was more severe than necessary strictly because the case involved a man molesting a boy. I don’t think anybody’s arguing that the verminous dude in question deserves a serious prison sentence; I think what is being set forth is the idea that, in sentencing people for sex crimes, you can’t use the gender of the perpetrator vis-a-vis the gender of the victim as justification for a harsher sentence.

And, in fact, that’s exactly what’s going on in this case. Consider this from the New York Times:

The court’s directive today that the Kansas courts reconsider the Limon case with Lawrence v. Texas in mind was tantamount to an instruction to set aside the prison term imposed on Mr. Limon, and perhaps to take a close look at what has been called the state’s “Romeo and Juliet Law.”

The statute gained that nickname in some legal circles because it regards oral sex differently when it involves heterosexual teenage couples, as opposed to youths of the same sex.

When one member of the couple is aged 14 to 16 and the other is older, the act is statutory rape under the Kansas law and the most common penalty is probation if the two are heterosexual. But probation is not available to same-sex teenage couples.

I don’t know about you, but, in light of yesterday’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, that sounds an awful lot like an equal-protection violation to me. I think the Supreme Court got this one right.

UPDATE!

It’s pretty amazing what you discover when you read all the way to the end of the story:

Matthew Limon [defendant in this case] was one week past his 18th birthday in early 2000 when he performed oral sex on a 14-year-old boy at the center for developmentally disabled young people where they both lived. No violence or coercion was involved.

Factor all that together, and it’s difficult to justify a 17-year prison sentence. This wasn’t the act of a predatory Lothario; this was two teenagers in the same institution for the developmentally disabled doing something that’s not exactly unheard of, even there.

FABLES OF THE DECONSTRUCTION

Bryan from Arguing with Signposts is pondering the Recording Industry Association of America’s recent announcement that it’s going to start suing file-sharers. and he’s wondering why they made this choice in the first place. As he puts it,

Forget about providing them with reasonably priced alternatives (like Apple’s new music service). Forget about evidence that shows some file sharers are more likely to buy CDs. Forget that these are fans of my artists. I must destroy them. They are stealing bread from my table! This is WAR!

So, what would be the best way I could resolve the problem? Hmmmm. Let’s look at the options:
1) Begin a concentrated effort to put our catalog online in a format that people can download songs they like for a reasonable price. Allow them to use the songs just like they would a cassette or a CD - any way they want. Trust that a majority of the people will want to do the right thing. Build up good PR that will eventually dry up the user base. At the same time, begin focusing some enforcement efforts on major league file sharers who are clearly abusing our good will.

2) Sue the pants off everyone who downloads a copy of “the Real Slim Shady” over the Internet. Take away their income. Subject them to huge fines and lawyer fees. Destroy any good will that may have existed with the buying public (and especially the Internet community) up to this point. Begin working on technological means to inhibit legal owners of music from playing their CDs or song files in any place they might want to. Ignore the possible bad PR because, well, it just feels good to get revenge. I can crush them!

You know, I think I’ll choose number 2!

Actually, I prefer the following analogy: Suppose I distribute screwdrivers. And I can’t find a supplier who can only provide me with perfect, high-quality tools. No matter who I buy screwdrivers from, at least 50% of their product has significant quality issues. But the tools I buy that are perfect, you’ll never wear out and never get rid of.

So what do I do? Do I:

1. Package the good and bad tools together, forcing you to buy some of each if you want to get a good screwdriver or two, or

2. Refuse the substandard tools, run the suppliers out of business, and charge whatever the market will bear for the good tools?

Either way, you’re paying $20 for one or two good screwdrivers.

GREED: IT’S NOT JUST FOR BREAKFAST ANYMORE

So suppose I told you that here in the US, where the very first amendment to our Constitution specifies that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free practice thereof,” we in fact have a religion which is not only respected but flat-out enforced by multiple levels of government. This religion is based on an unprovable, counter-intuitive assumption which flies in the face of known science and human behavior. But the government is more than willing to mandate that you participate in this facile sham.

This religion has prophets, chief priests, grand inquisitors, even an honest-to-goodness Sanhedrin or three. And if you refuse to participate in this religion’s required rituals, all these self-appointed theocrats have the power to force you to comply–or even throw you in jail. This all happens right under the nose of our bound-by-the-1st-Amendment government, and nobody, at any level, seems to have any interest in doing anything about it.

The practicioners of this religion use their beliefs to justify interfering with what you do in your own home. They practice their religion to the detriment of legitimate community needs–they’ve been known to oppose services for the handicapped, affordable housing for the working class, even the establishment of homes for the elderly. And, again, they do so with the government’s full blessing, despite the promises of the 1st Amendment.

This religion is founded on a premise so weird, so clearly counter-intuitive, it’s amazing anybody believes in it at all. Yet there’s branches of government, federal, state, and local, whose sole raison d’etre is to ensure that you participate in this religion, whether you’re a believer or not.

What heinous sort of lie could inspire such evil? Funny you should ask . . .
–> read more

ACTUALLY, I’M AMAZED IT’S STILL AROUND

You don’t usually turn to the Des Moines Register for cutting-edge music journalism, but its music critic, Kyle Munson, is wondering what’s up with the Lilith Fair:

Female musicians rallied in the 1990s with the traveling summer music festival called Lilith Fair, but nearly a decade later many of them seem to have more in common with “Charlie’s Angels.”

In other words, the Lilith crowd used to hew closer to the rootsy folk of, say, the Indigo Girls. Now the singers are changing their tune, going pop to compete in a post-Britney world.

Go read, and also note that the DMR screwed up the HTML formatting, making the middle 40% of the article bold text. That never happens here at The Bemusement Park . . .

JUST IN CASE ANYBODY’S WONDERING

The greatest soul ballad of all time, without a doubt?

Tower of Power’s “You’re Still A Young Man.” If you think otherwise, I can only assume that you’ve never heard “You’re Still A Young Man.” Go hence, dear reader, and live in the dark no more.

MORE LIST-O-MANIA

Dylan Wilbanks has posted his list of the top 100 songs from the last 25 years. I’m waiting for the rest of you . . .

HOOTIE AND THE BLOWFISH DIDN’T MAKE IT

. . . and man, is my wife steamed. But, at any rate, in the extended entry is my personal list of the top 100 songs of the last 25 years. They’re presented in reverse order, with comments on each one.

Britney Spears didn’t make it either. So who did? Well, for that, you’ll have to . . .
–> read more

REPOSTED BY REQUEST

I posted this at the old site back in May on the one-year anniversary of my father’s death. Bryan suggested I repost it here, since this site is more reliable than the last one, and this Sunday is Father’s Day and all. Not only that, but this coming Sunday would have been my father’s 59th birthday. We’re leaving for Iowa right after church on Sunday morning, because I don’t want to be away from home one minute longer.

Anyway, the repost:

Dear Dad,

The significance of this day is not lost on me. One year ago today, about this very minute, in fact, I got the word that you’d been killed in an accident, struck broadside by a person who couldn’t be bothered to read a road sign, even if it was bright red and said ‘STOP.’ I wish I could tell you more about what happened next, but those ensuing couple of weeks are still a fog to me. All I remember (apart from the efforts one person who sincerely tried to help but would have been better off doing nothing) is that I remember being lost amongst a much larger group of lost people, everybody who ever knew and loved you.
–> read more

I’VE GOT A LITTLE LIST

No, not that list, at least not yet. But, to whet your appetite, here’s my list of the 10 biggest ripoff songs ever to make it big–you know, songs that sound exactly like a well-known artist’s work . . . except they’re not.

10. “Butterfly Kisses”–Bob Carlisle: Channeling Michael Bolton made him an awful lot of money, no?
9. “It’s Alright, It’s OK”–Leah Andreone: If Jewel decided to rock out, she’d probably sound a lot like this.
8. “The Sign”–Ace of Base: ABBA covers Musical Youth. What a concept.
7. “I’ve Been Thinking About You”–Londonbeat: Dancing on the grave of Fine Young Cannibals.
6. “After The Rain”–Nelson: Poison just wasn’t putting out new material fast enough, I guess.
5. “It’s A Heartache”–Bonnie Tyler: Crimony, she sounds more like Rod Stewart than Rod Stewart does.
4. “When The Morning Comes”–Natalie Imbruglia: Forever cemented her reputation as the Wal*Mart version of Alanis Morrissette.
3. “Jessie”–Joshua Kadison: Apparently, one Elton John is all anybody wants.
2. “Hooch”–Everything: Man, right after Sublime totally fell apart, these guys copped their sound and their vibe, and still couldn’t rise above one-hit-wonder status.
1. “All For You”–Sister Hazel: What Blues Traveler would sound like if John Popper lost his harmonica.