George Harrison, Copyright and More Beatles Info

Can there be anything new to learn about the Beatles? I have recently been doing some reading about the under-appreciated George Harrison, the innovator of the charity rock and album concept, as well as the triple album and perhaps the instigator of the world music phenomenon, through his melding of Indian music with rock and his friendship with Ravi Shankar.

Harrison was the third major Beatle to compose songs for the group. Ringo only composed two songs during his years as a Beatle, while Lennon and McCartney composed the vast majority of the Beatles tunes. Harrison wrote approximately twenty songs, including such famous ones as Something and Here Comes the Sun, and every libertarian's favorite rock song, Taxman.

Nevertheless, perhaps due to self-effacement, or perhaps due to the incomplete manner in which song rights are derived, Harrison has not received his proper credit for the Beatles sound. Consider Lucy in the Sky, for instance. Lennon wrote the song and sang it on the Pepper album and it was later covered by Elton John. But the Beatles' version has a very different psychedelic sound and feel which is largely derived from Harrison's use of Indian instruments.

As a quick aside, the title of the song appears to derive from a confusion by Lennon's son Julian of diamonds and stars, likely due to the song, Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star. Upon presenting a picture he had drawn of his classmate Lucy to his father, John Lennon, Julian was asked what the picture was and he replied that it was a picture of Lucy in the sky with diamonds (stars). It obviously made a great song title with a delicious double entendre but the title's origin is in fact, most likely innocent and not related to the drug LSD.

Back to Harrison, many of the most characteristic hooks and riffs in Lennon and McCartney songs were devised by Harrison, the group's lead guitarist, but either because of group politics or legal failure to recognize innovations beyond lyrics and music, Harrison's innovations have largely gone unrecognized.

One of the most gratifying aspects of appreciating the Beatles involves listening to their music and recognizing the chronology of the different songs and albums. I am not sure that most of us today think of rock musicians as undergoing improvement in their technical skills due to the pre-packaged nature of much of the product, but with the Beatles, and particularly with McCartney and Harrison, it is readily apparent.

Their early work derives most of its value from the tunes and the innovative singing and arrangements but not so much from the instruments. But starting around 1966, with the Revolver sessions, the playing becomes much better. On Paperback Writer, Harrison's lead guitar and McCartney's skillful bass playing are notable. Even Ringo's drums come forward, showing an upfront and tasteful dexterity than gives the song, Rain much of its punch.

By their final album, Abbey Road, the Beatles truly had mastered the craft of their instruments. Harrison's distinctive guitar had never sounded better and the trading of guitar riffs between Harrison, McCartney and Lennon, accompanied by Ringo's first extended drum solo at the end of side two were an emphatic and satisfying punctuation to the ending of their partnership. ("And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make;" don't forget that. It is the key to a good life.)

I make this point about their increasing instrumental prowess because much of the improvement in the Beatles' sound derives from Harrison's guitar playing and riffs. Although it was not his style to play like a guitar virtuoso, Harrison's playing clearly received its due from others in the business such as Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan. Listening to his early solo works, it becomes even more clear how important Harrison was to the Beatles' sound, particularly on Abbey Road.

Continuing with the theme of what you might still not know about the Beatles, here are five superb Beatles songs that many people, even Beatles fans might not have heard before:

1. It's All Too Much

Written by Harrison, this song appears on the original Yellow Submarine album, which many people do not purchase because it only contains one side of Beatles music, with side two being excerpts from the film score. This six minute plus song is superb psychedelia, with meaningful lyrics and a cool fade-out.

2. Rain

Written by Lennon, this song was the flip side of Paperback Writer and never featured on any of the Beatles studio albums, although it can be found on the American Hey Jude album and later on some CD compilation albums. Lennon sounds like an ancient medicine man and Ringo scourges the skins in way never before heard.

3. Hey, Bulldog

Written by Lennon, this is another rocking Yellow Submarine treat that is seldom heard on the radio.

4. All Together Now

Written by McCartney for the Yellow Submarine movie (does anyone see a trend here?), this is a great children's song that kids instinctively take to, as they do to this excellent movie in general.

5. While My Guitar Gently Weeps (accoustic version)

Written by Harrison, this song appeared in an amplified version on the White Album, with Eric Clapton lending a hand on guitar. This beautiful accoustic version features only Harrison and is a spare, haunting song with a meaningful extra lyrical stanza omitted from the White Album version. The accoustic version appears only on the Beatles third anthology album, which probably still isn't enough to justify the price for most people.

OSU Football Controversy

There is currently a raging debate over the appropriateness of comments made by Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy at a press conference, in reference to an article by a female sports columnist in an Oklahoma paper.

The columnist, Jenni Carlson, wrote a highly speculative opinion piece about the OSU quarterback, Bobby Reid, who had recently been benched. Her column raises the question as to whether Reid was too soft to be a starter because he was basically a "momma's boy."

Coach Gundy defended his player vehemently, which can be seen here: http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/09/23/mike-gundy-hates-media-inaccuracies-hopes-you-have-kids-one-day/


Many of the media talking heads are now attacking Gundy and defending Carlson, showing once again that they don't get it how much the public despises these types of articles. This is not a question of free speech.

Carlson had every right under the First Amendment to write her article, but it was, indeed, full of speculation and largely devoid of facts, not to mention mean-spirited. Gundy had every right under the First Amendment to say what he said as well, and the part about her not being a mother was also mean-spirited, but he at least has the excuse that he did what he did in the heat of the moment.

Carlson wrote her hit piece with aplomb, apparently unaware that yes, amateur athletes do have feelings and perhaps unaware that calling someone a "mommas boy" is about the worse insult there is in sports.

Many of the media types have defended her, saying that columnists have the job of offering opinions. http://www.ocregister.com/sports/gundy-carlson-reid-1852672-took-coach

Nevertheless, it appears to me that opinions based upon speculation and soft "facts" are inappropriate given their great possibility of being incorrect.

There is a vast difference between saying "Ottawa in six" and attacking a player and his mother. If people in the mainstream media can't see the difference, then they are just as much part of the problem.

Carlson's article had little or no value and should have been tossed in the can. Part of being a good writer is knowing when to throw things away; Carlson has a lot of learning to do.

Can the DC Region Support Two MLB Teams?

This is a complicated issue, If you look at the trend, the O's attendance has fallen every single year of this decade, which obviously has nothing to do with the Nationals, until 2005, when perhaps, it fell a bit faster.

On the other hand, it is indisputable that people situated like me, in southern Frederick County Maryland, are equidistant from both franchises. In the past, I only had the option of attending O's games, now I have a choice. Obviously, that will cut down on some attendance.

Nevertheless, it is a virtual impossibility that the Nats' new stadium will be as nice as Camden Yards and I believe that it will still be easier (not to mention cheaper to park) to continue driving to Baltimore, than trying to schlep to SE Washington for people living in Montgomery, Frederick, and Washington counties Maryland.

Ultimately, its the product on the field that will make the difference, however, since people rarely root for two teams in a serious manner. Since arriving in 2005, the Nats have been scrappy overachievers who are fun to watch. The O's are the exact opposite. Unless Baltimore can reverse this trend and put winning baseball on television in order to draw fans, their wonderful ballpark will not be enough.
http://www.examiner.com/a-943070~Orioles__attendance_woes_hurt_all_of_Baltimore.html

Iraq

I remember the isolation in being just about the only American to oppose the war with Iraq in 2003. Going to France that year was actually a relief in that at least it was possible there to debate the war with people who had some measure of rationality, unlike the deplorable and utterly clueless American people, who should be deeply ashamed of themselves and their utter depravity.

There were alas, far too few points of light to illuminate the way for our utterly benighted nation, but it is always instructive to go back and read some of the voices which were actually correct in their predictions, as opposed to the Fox News and Washington Post crowd who cheerleaded us into war.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/03/10/hourglass/index.html

Hillary and the GOP

As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton and do not want her to be President, part of me is secretly hoping she wins because she drives the base of the GOP nuts. It really would be sweet to see her win just to have it rubbed in all of their faces.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/01/hillary_obsession/

Corporate Taxation

Here's a Wall Street Journal article lamenting high corporate tax rates in the United States: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118428874152665452-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0MzIxODM4Wj.html

Bush and the GOP had 6 years to do something about this. Instead, they lowered taxes for their friends who pay capital gains, while basically leaving taxes in general just where they had been under Clinton. Indeed, for all of Bush and the GOP's huffing and puffing about how great they have been on taxes, the fact is that income and corporate taxes are higher under this President, than they were under his father, widely derided for raising them.

It is difficult to even conceive of, but basically our current President has made it through two terms and has been wrong on virtually every issue of importance, including income taxes, supposedly one of his few strengths.

Libby Pardon and the Right

The following is a response to a writer on the right who has attempted, feebly to defend Bush's use of the pardon power to commute Libby's sentence:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/understanding-t.html#comment-75901712

I think that it would be a waste of time to spend much time on Mr. Ruckman's analysis, as opposed to his knowledge of pardoning anecdotes, which can be interesting or amusing, although besides the point with respect to this blog.

He repeats over and over points that are obvious to anyone versed in criminal procedure or constitutional law as though he had arrived at something everyone else is either disputing or has missed, i.e.:

the pardon power is grounded in the actual text of the Constitution; the pardon power cannot be restricted, in any way, by either the legislative or judicial branch; pardons .... on the other hand, can be granted for any reason; presidents do not need to give any reasons at all for a pardon.


This is all information of the painfully obvious sort and Ruckman refuses to acknowledge that most of the interest in the commutation by people in the criminal justice field is due to the fact that Bush derided the exact sentencing positions carefully espoused by Gonzalez and the Justice Department, as well as the Republicans in Congress, which will make it much harder for the GOP to advocate higher sentences in the future or to further restrict judicial discretion in sentencing.

Rather than deal with such likely real world aspects of the Bush commutation, Ruckman falls back on two limpless arguments, that all presidents have done it equally gracelessly and that there is nothing that Congress can do anyway, so there!

In fact, that are many statutory steps that Congress could take, even short of the obvious step of amending the constitution to remove or alter the pardon power or impeaching the president, to regulate the President's use of the pardon power. While none of these statutory steps could abolish the pardon power, they could make it plenty painful for the president in the event of corrupt use of the pardon power.

Ultimately, my goal is to see fewer people such as Scooter Libby in prison and thus, I approve of ample and considered use of the pardon power. The ultimate irony here is the people on the right who love this exercise of the pardon power but are loathe to see either it or the arguments Bush used in issuing it applied in any other contexts.

GOP in Big Trouble

Barring some type of cataclysmic change in U.S. politics, the Republicans have little or no chance of winning the presidency in 2008. With the exception of Obama, the Democratic candidates' negatives are well known and they still are leading easily over the Republicans. Once the average American learns that Giuliani is a serial-adulterer whose children will not speak to him, I expect him to plunge in the polls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/politics/03rudy.html?ex=1330664400&en=8a45469df90fd34e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Oklahoma on Double Probation in Football and Basketball

I still disagree with the decision to make Oklahoma our 46th state....

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/sportsextra/blog/pickerblog_main.asp

GOP Healthcare Cognitive Dissonance

Medicare expansion for old people is good, expanding coverage for children is bad? Something is deeply wrong with the GOP position on health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/washington/09child.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Libby Sentencing Again

To any of those on the Right who continue to assert that somehow Libby received an abnormal sentence in his case, I would encourage you to consider going to the nearest federal district court in your area on a day where they do federal sentencings.

You are likely to see several people with no previous record who have gotten caught up in federal prosecutions and received jail time for offenses that most people would never be prosecuted for.

You will notice that the Probation Officer will submit a report in which various potentially mitigating aspects are discussed. Nevertheless, the final recommendation is based upon the sentencing algorithm and is always higher for individuals who go to trial, like Libby, rather than plead guilty.

You will hear federal prosecutor after prosecutor arguing that lack of previous record has already been considered in the guidelines. Indeed, it is part of the basic algorithm. You will hear them argue with respect to public employees, that such people should in fact receive greater punishment for betraying the public trust. You will hear them argue that losing a law license is immaterial with respect to sentencing, as is dangerousness. You will hear them tell the judge that all varieties of acquitted or uncharged conduct should be imputed to the defendant to increase his sentence.

You will see the tears of the family members and friends upon seeing loved ones who are a threat to no one go away for long periods of time.

Perhaps at that point, you will realize that for many the issue is not whether or not the President had the power to do what he did, it is the raw, rank hypocrisy of Bush's commenting that the system behaved unfairly with respect to Libby, when in fact, the system behave exactly as Bush and the Republicans have always argued that it should and exactly as it does virtually every single day during federal sentencings in the nation that imprisons the most people per capita in the world. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/highest_to_lowest_rates.php

Federal Sentencing and Fairness

It is startling just how ignorant people on the right are about the federal criminal sentencing processes. Ben Stein has a column in the American Spectator to apparently say whatever he wants, regardless of whether it has any basis in reality. I have seen similar articles in other web locations such as Townhall.com and TCSdaily, where the writers show a basic ignorance (if not abject ignorance) as to how our federal system functions. Perhaps Ben Stein or somebody from TCS or the Wall Street Journal should call Tony Rudy or some of the other unfairly charged Abramoff defendants and ask them how the system functions with respect to first offenders, rather than spouting off some nonsense that they believe they learned from the Law and Order television program.

I have not seen a single person with a column among Republicans lift one finger to help Tony Rudy, while they bend over backward to defend the Libby pardon, which is violative of every single Republican sentencing precept of the last 8 years.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11675

Libby Pardon Fall-out

This reminds me a bit of when Apprendi, a significant Supreme Court sentencing case came out. The New York Times was going on and on about some mundane issue, while I remember thinking to myself, people outside the field of criminal law have no idea how big the Apprendi decision is.

I often tell non-lawyers that I have a 25-year lag theory regarding the public's knowledge of criminal procedure. The American man in the street still believes it is easy to "get off" by pleading insanity; he believes that all felons are out in 6 months; he believes that it is easy to get cases thrown out due to evidentiary loopholes and he believes that there is no system more fair than the American system of justice.

The Libby pardon proves the point. From their statements, neither Tony Snow nor the President have any understanding of how sentencing works under the federal guidelines, which have only been in existence now for 23 years. In spite of the recent Supreme Court Rita case, in which Bush's Justice Department argued against the very rationales (and won) Bush gave for commuting Libby's sentence, I believe that Bush's gaffe in this manner by not simply pardoning on grounds of mercy is going to sway a lot of judges, even though they may not admit it in court.

I think all throughout the media, we are seeing confusion as to the jury's role in federal sentencing, which is very different from most states. In some states, like Virginia, for example, juries may give sentence recommendations that may bind judges to some extent, but that is emphatically not the case in federal court.

Juries in federal court have nothing to do with sentencing. They don't recommend one and they have no idea what the sentences are likely to be. In fact, jurors often indicate that they would not have convicted had they known that the federal sentence was ten times what they had thought it would be.

The jurors vote up or down on individual counts, which assuming a conviction, are then put into a highly complex formula that attempts to set a monthly range for that defendant's sentence, based upon criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, level of culpability and at times, cooperation. In spite of its purported goal of making sentences fair for everyone, it only accomplishes this by making sentences draconian and restricting judges from lowering them, something Bush has promoted with more vigor than even Clinton or his father.

The issue thus, is the blatant hypocrisy, which given that Bush and his spokesman, Tony Snow seem oblivious to how the Guidelines work, could actually be nothing more than abject ignorance, if that makes those of you on the Right feel better about your President.

Ultimately, Bush articulated the very same reasons that criminal defense attorneys always elucidate on behalf of their defendants. While this may not carry a precedential force of law, it certainly may portend a turning point, as ideas cannot easily be bottled up once unleased.

Until about 2 years ago, the formula was basically automatic and unappealable. Judges have slightly more leeway now but the Bush administration and the Republicans have sought to restrict even that bit of leeway, thus resulting in the unassailable charge of hypocrisy against King George. Starting with Libby, things may now begin to change.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/still-more-sent.html#comment-74971306

More on Scooter Libby

While Bush's decision is obviously abhorrent to almost any rational person, it is extremely beneficial to Tony.

Like most Republicans, and unfortunately most lawyers, Bush has no idea how the federal sentencing system operates and he employed virtually all of the standard defense arguments that his own Justice Department has argued against to prop up the sentencing guidelines against Scalia and Thomas's arguments for abolishment. All of the things Bush cited in his order are the same arguments that his very own Justice Department has sought to abolish as a matter of law. The utter and complete hypocrisy of Bush and the GOP is going to benefit thousands of defendants in the long run.

So, I say, thank you, George. You are an utter, genius, even better at managing legal affairs than you are at managing the war in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?hp

Housing Bubble?

You really have to wonder when you see stories like this:

"Bolivian immigrants Marcelo Ortega, a dump truck driver, and his wife, Jenny, who cleans houses, bought a brick-front Colonial in Herndon for $549,000 in February 2006. The payments are $4,200 a month, which grew unbearable as residential construction work slowed and Ortega's income dropped." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902582_2.html

How could such a loan have been approved?

Marcelo notes that "My wife loves this house."

Who wouldn't?

Libby Pardon

In spite of all the complaining on the Left, Bush is now on record as stating that the sentencing guidelines can be excessive. This is significant because his administration has strongly opposed any efforts to weaken the guidelines authority and (Clinton also) has argued that in fact, the guidelines are virtually always correct and should seldom be departed from.

The truth is, that there is very little about Scooter Libby's case that differs from other run of the mill white collar cases under the federal system. Unlike what Bush claimed, such defendants virtually never have a criminal record and virtually never received jail time before the imposition of the sentencing guidelines. Bush has now publicly stated that the guidelines can result in excessive sentences and I expect to see many defendants and their lawyers using Bush's language in future briefs. I also think that Courts of Appeal are likely to take Bush at his word and will begin to grant many more departures for defendants in general, given their often excessive nature.

In summary, what Bush did is great for defendants and their lawyers. Once again, thinking that he is smarter than everyone else, Bush made his decision essentially without consultation and has come up with a decision that is a nightmare for the standard Republican argument on crime and something that will be a nightmare for prosecutors to deal with. Bush has come out and made all the arguments against the federal criminal justice system that many liberals and libertarians have been trying to make for years.

For those who are upset, look past Libby and be glad that many future defendants are likely to benefit from this.

So, those of us who believe the system is unfair should recognize that Bush has done a potential favor for all current and future defendants.

Gator Sighting in DC Area

Ever since Bush has been President, DC has just gone to Hell....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801343.html?sub=AR

Apple and Industrial Design

You have to give Apple credit. Its products are about 99% styling based and 1% based upon technology. People act as though Apple invented the MP3 player and as though there were something technologically exceptionally about its OS. Neither is true.

But with all things being more or less equal, people want to use products that look good, especially when based upon timeless designs. I find myself especially drawn to audio products that embody these precepts and a quick perusal on Ebay will show that products from the past that look good generally receive a large premium, even over sometimes superior products that fail the coolness test.

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/2007/06/mossberg_and_pogue_like_the_ip.html

College World Series

Congratulations to the Beavers, who seem to have the Tar Heels' number in the College World Series, after defeating them for the second year in a row.

You have to give OSU credit, but in general, the idea of a best 2 of 3 series as being determinative as to who is superior between two baseball teams seems statistically suspicious. I will have to check but I am willing to bet that the Tar Heels are still ahead in the power ratings. Unlike a single boxing or American football match, baseball prowess probably necessitates a series of at least 9 games.

This is a big issue for me in major league baseball, as I believe that MLB has sold out the importance of the regular season to boost attendance through the "phony" wildcard races, which involve teams that have not even played comparable schedules.

I would like to see them go back to the way it was in 1968, when the best team from each league made it to the World Series. When was the last time that that happened? Probably, when the Braves and Yankees played a few years back, but it is becoming less and less common. Last year was just a joke, with St. Louis, a team that barely had a winning record winning the series.

Mike Nifong and the Duke Case

I really couldn't put things much better than the following article, which makes clear how seldom state bar associations censure prosecutors for unethical conduct. State bar associations basically exist to promote the interests of large law firms, thus it is easy to find it laughable the way the North Carolina State Bar acted as though it came galloping to the rescue upon finding a lone violation by a prosecutor.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168680/