Necessity has a habit of breeding pioneers. The present case is no exception. Feeling the need to experience further design growth via Pshop Tennis matches but not having any ready comers, Brandon and I developed a more accessible game: MS Paint Tennis. Look forward to seeing graphic to-and-fro reminiscent of a Colecovision! Coming soon to a Nowheresville near you.

In other news, are there any other kids out there interested in a Photoshop Tennis Match? And anybody interested in providing guest commentary? Caution and I are set to have another match as soon as his school/work load lightens up a little bit, but in the meantime... me wants to have some more mindless fun (even though its kinda stressful, I've found the matches pretty relaxing overall).

By the way... I single-handedly took down Jett's site. I feel so cool. (it was because she threatened to have a site with not a single photo of Michelle Kwan)

Vidblog #17: Black History Month: I

Curiously enough, it appears the good karma gained from from knoiwing how to spell fo'c'sle did not actually even me out enough, because filming this here vidblog was a royal pain. Technical problems abounded from a camera that wouldn't shoot (it seems the camera is fickle in the presence of dimes) to a battery that died in the middle of a great shot to poor lighting to a phone rigning right in the middle of it all. After all that, i was considerably put out and had difficulty delivering the words that I even ended up writing on index cards. With all that in mind here are two outtakes of nearly completed versions. Ones during which I just lost whatever it was that was going on in my head and turned in to a salami. An angry salami, but a salami nonetheless. So: Take 35 and Take 42.

I feel sorta bad. When I read this morning that Helmut Newton had died, the first thing to cross my mind was "Good riddance." *sigh* Now I'll be wracked with remorse all afternoon.

In brighter news, I know how to spell fo'c'sle. So I think my karma has evened out again.

Brian Godawa's review (pdf, so beware) of Mel Gibson's The Passion [of Christ] was fairly disappointing. He makes little comment on such concerns as direction, cinematography, editing, acting, etc. (you know, the bits and pieces that people typically wish to hear about a film their not quite convinced they wish to see). Instead he largely presents a case why Protestants should see the film in spite of it being R-rated, from a Roman Catholic director, and having a smurfy ('scuse me, postmodern) slant. If he was going to spend his "review" forging a polemic in praise of the film, he could have at least broached what I consider the most serious question in the film's regard - that of proffering a crafted image of God (image of his human form yes, but the question still exists for Protestants).

Then Godawa makes such confusing statements as "this masterpiece has clearly been providentially ordained by God for such a time as this." The thing is: Godawa, being a good Calvinist, believes that butter is providentially ordained for such a time as this. Once one realizes his ideology, the summation becomes odd and perhaps meaningless, a good example of fluff in film review. *sigh* I wouldn't mind reading a better review of the film. One that if not actually reviewing the film (as Godawa's did not), at least one that deals with critique that interests me.

p.s. Once more, the president focuses upon the wrong solution to the drug "problem." He suggests 23 million bones be given to school to aid in drug-testing. The fact of the matter is that high school/college kids will smoke dope and will not ruin their lives. No really, this happens everyday. Look around you for the evidence. Look at any successful businessman between fifty and sixty years old. Odds are compellingly high that he did indeed smoke weed, drop acid, and practice free love. The fact is that while these things are mistakes, they rarely exert the kind of lifelong damage that opponents would have you believe. Besides its illegality, I see little wrong with responsible use of marijuana - just like I see nothing wrong with the responsible use of alcohol or caffeine. And let's be honest, by and large, high school kids aren't coked up or smacked up - it's too rich for the blod of most teens. Rather than throw more money at a problem that is only vaguely problematic, the government ought to legalize marijuana and, for now, regulate it like alcohol (though the regulation of alcohol is another matter to tackle at another time). The fact is: drugs don't ruin lives, but abusive drug use is prime evidence of a life that is already ruined (or at least on the road to that destination).

-p.s. This is not just a Republican problem. Democrats are just as likely (if not more likely) to abuse the role of government.

Update: Analysis So Far (23 Jan - 8:20 PST)

While I had hoped to offer more analysis, the synopsis of points and catalogue of reason-errors took far too long and consists of nearly 3000 words, so... hope it helps clarify the issue:

Chronology of Arguments:

Initial Post:

Posits simply without offering evidences that marijuana should be decriminalized.

Posits that use of marijuana will not necessarily nor probably ruin lives.

Posits that drug use doesn't ruin lives, but abusive drug use is prime evidence of a life that is already ruined.

Johnny T:

Concurs with post, focusing on the impropriety of government involvement in what he regards a private issue.

Cal:

Contra Post.

Posits that marijuana is unhealthy and should therefore remain criminalized.

Agrees that government involvement may not be the answer but still supports criminalization.

The Dane:

Contra Cal.

Posits that there are numerous things that are not healthy (coffee, cellphones, etc.) that we do not criminalize.

Questions why marijuana is singled out.

Posits that cigarettes are generally regarded as more dangerous than marijuana.

Questions whether cigarettes ought to be criminalized (UNANSWERED).

Johnny T.:

Questions whether the government is supposed to solve all the problems of its citizenry.

The Cautioneer:

Concurs with Cal.

Appeals to authority (law enforcement personnel) to posit that decriminalization would produce strong negative results.

Posits that marijuana is not that widely used.

Posits that marijuana drastically reduces mental faculties.

Posits that widespread marijuana use (a presumed affect of decriminalization) would cause a serious decline in the quality of U.S. students.

The Dane:

Contra The Cautioneer.

Argues against law enforcement personnel as a valid authority on the issue as the issue involved not law enforcement or criminal activity, but rather social theory (a field not taken to be the expertise of enforcement officers).

Questions whether The Cautioneer, based upon his statements that the government should continue the criminalization of marijuana, would affirm that the government is supposed to solve all the problems of its citizenry (in reference to Johhny T's question).

Jett:

Responds to The Cautioneer.

Questions The Cautioneer's sources that describe marijuana as drastically reducing the mental faculties of the user.

Cites American Journal of Epidemiology study that concludes: "There were no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis."

Contra Cal, Jett cites Canadian Medical Association Journal study concludes: "We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence" and notes that light users (less than five joints per week) experienced gains in I.Q.

Posits that most Americans watch far more television than psychologically, emotionally, academically and physically healthy.

Posits that television (or even prolonged viewing) should not be criminalized.

Posits that accountability ought to be the focus of the discussion rather than the affects of marijuana.

Posits that drugs are not the source of America's poor students, but rather poor parenting and lack of accountability.

The Dane:

Suggests that the majority of Americans' misinformation comes from decades of government indoctrination.

Stacey B:

Concurs with Jett.

Posits that marijuana smoked occasionally will not produce lasting results.

Posits that frequent, heavy use will degrade thinking and reaction time.

Posits that marijuana is not physically addictive.

Suggests that marijuana may be emotionally addictive, but posits that any activity can play host to the same addiction.

Posits that activities that are unhealthy for the minority should not be made illegal for this would punish the unaffected majority.

Concurs with Jett that responsibility is the key.

The Cautioneer:

Contra Jett, Stacey B, The Dane, and Johnny T.

Posits that decriminalization will necessarily forge a nation of addicts.

Refers to opponents as hippies with veiled suggestion that they are aware that decriminalization will end in a nation of addicts.

Makes joke about Guam (later misunderstood).

Cites DEA homepage.

Cites another law enforcement officer's opinion, which concludes: that drugs should not be decriminalized because they "exacerbate the user’s criminal nature."

Contra The Dane, patently rejects argument that officers of law enforcement are not authoritative to the issue at hand.

Contra Jett, dismisses Canadian Medical Association Journal due to a distaste of Canadian socialist tendancy.

Contra Jett, suggests the American Journal of Epidemiology research was referring to cannabis and not marijuana.

Posits that cannabis is legally available in the form of Marinol.

Answers The Dane, stating that the government should not seek to solve all the problems of its citizenry.

Posits the role of government is to protect the general welfare of its citizenry.

Posits that decriminalization of marijuana will "release of harmful drugs into the hands of children" (unstated).

Posits that criminalization of marijuana is therefore fair jurisdiction for the government.

The Dane:

Contra The Cautioneer.

Posits the issue at hand is one of social theory (unstated).

Reaffirms that though law enforcement personnel may be authoritative in drug-related criminal activities, they cannot be viewed as authoritative for issues of social theory.

Dismisses "nation of addicts" as intended humour.

Compares decriminalization of marijuana with decriminalization of alcohol.

Posits that if decriminalization of alcohol did not create a nation of alcoholics, then decriminalization of marijuana (which isn't addictive) would have a similar lack of affect upon the nation.

With Stacey B, questions whether a thing should be criminalized because a minority cannot act responsibly.

Questions The Cautioneer's dismissal of the Canadian source since his disagreement was with Canadian social policy and not with Canadian medical science.

Compares dismissal to a rejection of scientific research because of a theological disagreement.

The Cautioneer:

Contra The Dane.

Mistakes argument against authority of DEA as affirmation of DEA as authoritative to the issue at hand.

Answers The Dane, stating that Canadian socialized medicine is resultant from Canadian medical science.

Suggests that populace post-decriminalization will be "potheads."

Cites White House Drug Policy release stating the problems associated with marijuana use (including carcinogens, depression, loss of mental acuity).

Cites National Institute of Drug Abuse suggesting that longtime marijuana use can lead to marijuana addiction.

Jett:

Contra The Cautioneer.

Disputes The Cautioneer's suggestion that the American Journal of Epidemiology was referring to anything other than the medicinal portion of cannabis (i.e., marijuana) - as that would render the study strange.

Cites Cannabis.com to source disputation.

Criticizes The Cautioneer's insulting tone.

Misunderstands The Cautioneer's jest regarding Guam.

Affrims with The Dane the unsuitable nature of the enforcement officer as an adequate authority to the issue at hand.

Posits that one of The Cautioneer's sources renders itself invalid by pointing out that the officer is only referring to the affect of drugs on criminals, who will act villainously regardless of the use of marijuana.

Posits that as there are many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana that are perfectly legal and easy to obtain.

Disputes The Cautioneer's dismissal of Canadian research as unreasonable and needlessly discriminatory.

Disputes The Cautioneer's claims that cannabis is legally available in any medicinal form stating that the drug, Marinol, to which The Cautioneer refers is synthetic and, therefore, not derived from cannabis.

Posits that Marinol is, moreover, less effective and healthy than marijuana, citing Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana.

Suggests that the propaganda surrounding marijuana may be at least partially developed by wealthy pharmacutical companies.

Responds to The Cautioneer's response to The Dane's question, suggesting that if The Cautioneer's theory of government intervention is consistently followed, then caffeine, high-sugar cereals, and food colourings should all be criminalized as well.

Catches an inconsistency in The Cautioneer's responses: first, marijuana is not widely used, but then his source states that marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug out there (75% of drug users use marijuana).

Questions whether The Cautioneer, in light of his dismissal of Canadian sources, needs to be explained the difference between sociological research and medical (UNANSWERED).

The Cautioneer:

Contra Jett.

Posits that marijuana arouses violent natures in people.

Denies that he believes that scientific research should be discounted on the basis of political ideology.

Posits that Marinol does indeed use cannabis.

Posits that Marinol, being synthetic, is much safer than natural marijuana.

Misunderstands that Jett has pointed out an inconsistency in his dialogue.

Jett:

Contra The Cautioneer.

Posits that if something is a synthetic substitute for marijuana, then it cannot, by definition, be made from the medicinal portion of cannabis (i.e., marijuana).

Reminds that Marinol is far less stable and far more dangerous than natural marijuana.

Sites Marinol website stating that the THC contain in Marinol is absolutely synthetic.

Johnny T:

Contra The Cautioneer.

Questions why beer should be legal while marijuana, which is nowhere near as dangerous as beer is criminalized.

Questions, moreover, why either should be criminalized since Americans have little problem using (the more dangerous) beer responsibly.

Cal:

Contra The Dane.

Questions whether The Dane intended to say that government cannot regulate behaviour.

What Is an Argumentum ad Hominem?

An Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive) is an argument which features belittling or insult as a persuasive feature. Not every insult or example of name-calling is guilty of this fallacy - only those uses that seem designed to discredit an opponent's argument.

A Catalogue of Errors of Reason (and Other Junk):

The Most Prevalent Fallacy Award goes to... Red Herring

Every reference to how marijuana contain's carcinogens, rots the mind, makes people lazy, makes people aggressive, is healthy, is dangerous, magnifies violent susceptibilities - all of these succeed only to draw the reader away from the focus of the issue, which is Is it the government's place to criminalize a substance like this since A) there are plainly worse substances which are perfectly legal (alcohol, for one) and B) responsible people simply do not succumb to marijuana's deleterious affects.

Argument from False Authority (The Cautioneer)

"I've talked personally to numerous law enforecement personnel who deal with this drug and its affect on people daily. They all seem to disagree with a legalization saying that it would be the worst thing you can do to a society or community." This is a sustained complaint but will only receive mention here.

First use of [sic] (Jett)

While technically not an error, this is almost universally considered to be rude - especially in an informal arena such as a blog, a bulletin board, or a comment thread. Just imagine if you utilized this convention when quoting Johnny T.?

Combination of Argumentum ad Populum and ad Hominem abusive (The Cautioneer)

"Haha, well all you hippies can create an America of addicts." Not only does this present on its face an argument seeking to persuade by suggesting that we wouldn't want either to be hippies nor to be involved in the addiction of a nation, but it also includes and implicit ad hominem persuasion, tearing down the character of his opponents. Whether said in jest or no, the most natural reading for the audience is fallacious.

Fallacy of Missing the Point (Relevance) via premature dismissal of an authority (The Cautioneer)

Canadian medical research bears no necessary relevance to Canadian work in the area of social theory. Success in one does not imply success in the other. Conversely, Failure in one does not imply failure in the other.

Begging the Question (The Cautioneer)

p1 - Decriminalization of marijuana = the release of harmful drugs into the hands of children
p2 - The release of harmful drugs into the hands of children = bad.
   \
c1 - Decriminalization = bad

p1 is the unstated and controversial premise.

Slippery Slope (The Cautioneer)

Decriminalization of marijuana will lead to a nation of "potheads." This is clearly a conclusion used only for effect as it has no basis in either history (see Prohibition repealment) nor in reasonable conjecture.

Argumentum ad Argumentum Abusive (Jett)

Detracts from The Cautioneer's argument by declaring him to left logical "holes big enough there for a train to barrel through."

Argumentum ad Hominem Abusive (Jett)

Declares The Cautioneer's use of ad hominem attack earlier to be a sign of "weak intellect." Such use of fallacies have never been a sign of diminished intellect but rather point instead to either emotional involvement or a plain lack of respect for clear and sustained discussion.

Unhelpful Sarcasm (Jett)

"Come on, Cautioneer. Give us a better platform to carve out from under you." Gives the impression that it doesn't matter what The Cautioneer has to say for Jett's goal will be to carve it out from under him.

Unhelpful Snide Remarks (The Cautioneer)

"*shakes head* Jett... someday I'd love to meet you in person. :-) Get a sense of humour and don't take everything as an insult. *sigh*" There is no way that the tone of this could not be read as an insult. As such, statements like this can only exacerbate the emotionalism of the discussion.

A better tactic would have been a humble apology for perceived insults.

Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial (The Cautioneer)

"What?! Haha, what are you talking about? You're obviously too passionate about this issue to hear facts and reasoning." Whether Jett is emotionally involved is irrelevant to the argument she presents.

[[ at this point, argumentation breaks down and is replaced with catfight between Jett and The Cautioneer, drawing comparisons to Howard Dean, Shemp (my favourite Stooge), etc. ]]

From here it gets more difficult to seperate battle from argumentation... Jett makes some good points that are marred by obvious frustration. The Cautioneer accuses Jett of ad hominems and proclaims himself an authority on the fallacy having taught debate (two points of order here: A) Jett's tone in the JACKASS comment do not meet the requirements of the ad hominem abusive fallacy as they do not work to persuade but are more just a simple expression of frustration after the end of a heated argument - note that the discussion has completely derailed at this point - and B) teaching debate and polemics does not consist in proper authority on identifying logical fallacies since - as pointed out before - polemics is concerned only with persuasion and not necessarily reason; polemics uses whatever tool is at its disposal to persuade and is not concerned with reason as its primary tool).

Suggestions:

The Cautioneer

While use of sarcasm and humour can lighten the mood of a discussion, you don't yet have the knack of using such sarcasm in writing without conveying a strongly condescending tone. I'd advise keeping the sarcasm at a minimum until you've developed a more user-friendly version.

The use of a smiley or winkey or a "haha" immediately proceeding or succeeding a snide remark does not automatically exonerate the remark but usually exacerbates the negative tone.

When someone is insulted by something you've said - even if you didn't intend it to be insulting - the best method to diffuse a potential explosion of emotion is to humbly and sincerely apologize for how your comment was perceived. Just saying you were kidding and that other people obviously don't have a sense of humour does not help - even if you add hahas and smileys.

Be willing to admit that you might be mistaken on something. You don't have to be right. There were points where you were clearly refuted and would not acknowledge it - this adds to the growing frustration of your opponents for they begin to realize that nothing they say, no matter how convincing, can convince you.

When someone offers you constructive criticism, "whatever" is not the proper response and will usually just be seen as rude.

Jett

You're a big girl now. Don't let a little thing like insulting dialogue turn you into a Banshee of Fury (tm).

Only use "[sic]" in academic writing. It has no valuable place in informal writing when quoting your opponent as it can only make your opponent defensive. Really, that's what it does.

The brilliant blue swapmeet tarp of the sky was today rent asunder. Bifurcated directly above me as i walked for donuts, the east still boasted that thrifty hue yet the west was swollen with the dark, grey, and foreboding rumble of texture and feeling that would soon threaten to end the day's weather-place bartering. No, there would be no bargains today. As the street-vendors of the heavens rolled up their blankets and put away their turquoise, the fat cats of commerce strolled in swaggering under the weight of their hard currency and the very effort rained down their lucre-perspiration upon the uneviable lot of us in the southern OC. The End.

In special honour of the holiday, I present this week's vidblog twelve hours early (to be timely and all).

Vidblog #16: King Martin Luthor Day

And yes, the bags were flaming, of course.

And within hours of finishing my match with Paulo, the loose ends of The Dane vs. The Cautioneer have tied up nicely as well. Rather than go with Jett's fantabulous play-by-play (as she's got plenty of stuff to do without us bothering her), we decided instead to feature behind the scene commentary on just what was going on while we plied our craft. Enjoy! And vote!

The Dane vs. The Cautioneer o1.o9.2oo4

Paulo and i have just wrapped up our match and so here it is, in all it's gory glory (Paulo's been fighting illness for the last week). Play by play, moment by moment, sweaty drop of blood by sweaty drop of blood. Complete with play-by-play commentary by Jett Superior from MichelleKwan.com. So check us, witnesses the majesty and consummate Vs, and be sure to rate the players at the end so we can know who lost ;-P

Brownpau vs. The Dane o1.o5.2oo4

p.s. Mine and Caution's match should end sometime later tonight, so look for more majesty and consummate Vs soon.

Hmm. For one reason or another, it looks as if I've been removed from the Google search for canyon hills church (not using quotation marks). For a long time, my humourous and critical article on the distasteful marketing strategies of Canyon Hills Church hovered in the top 10 results for canyon hills church. Now, surprisingly, it is no longer in the top 10 result. Or the top 20. Or the top 30, 50, or 100 results either. The page does not even appear in the top 900 results. But only if you search for the phrase as stated above. If you make additions, BAM! I'm back on top again. The following searches show favourable results:

• "canyon hills church"
• canyon hills church ladies
• canyon hills church series
• canyon hills church friendship
• canyon hills church friend
• canyon hills church bikini
• canyon hills church know

The last search is telling as the article appears seventh and beats out the result for ProSoundWeb. ProSoundWeb is the fourteenth result for the search from which my article is rejected. Doesn't it stand to reason that if things were on the up-and-up, my Canyon Hills Church Supports Bikini Sandwiches article would at least appear in the top 13.

No, the only answer that begins to make sense to me is that somebody has conspired against your dear old Dane. Palms have likely been greased and complaints have been made. Power has shifted its hoary weight from one haunch to another and in the process, I have been slighted.

And boy does that feel cool! ¡Viva la revolution!

Among that group of things that could be accurately called, "My Favourite Things to Do to Calendars," there stands alone one great and wonderful thing that can be accruately called, "My Favourite Thing to Do to Calendars." Really, I just like adding word balloons to the pictures to add context to the scene that is playing out before us over the course of the month. Here is this month's effort, straight outta Compton, yo.

And just in case you had trouble reading the text, it says the following:

Girl #1

so i'm shocked that we could fit your sister in this bag AND still have room for groceries

Girl #2

yeah... well she shouldn'ta hidden our shoes.

y'know?

It seems that the NY Times is stupid. Now i wasn't aware of this previously (not that i had gone to any lengths to discover it). But today, i was smacked in the eye with a dirt-clod full of NYTimes-stupidity. It comes down to this:

This morning i was trying to find an article by Elmore Leonard discussing principles of writing. It was, if memory serves, a good article. And i found it. And here is where i found the lamented stupidity. The NY Times charges $2.95 for a single article in their archives. $2.95! For less than a page of text!

Now i can understand the desire to make some money off their archived material, but $2.95 is ridiculous. That's more than a paper. I'm betting that a much saner business model would have them offering archived articles for a dime (or at most, a quarter). I would be perfectly happy to order a plethora of articles for a dime apiece. I'd almost certainly order more than thirty, but even if i only ordered five articles, at fifty cents, they're still making more money than they are currently (since they're currently making zero off me).

So in short, the NY Times needs to fire whoever came up with this business model - since they're obviously losing money in that department as well.

Vidblog #15: The Burrito

Aaaaaaaaand.... be sure to watch the aftermath:

 HERE 

Friday night, me and The Cautioneer went to see a film I've been hotly anticipating for the last two months. I think that I may have even been more anxious to see it than I was to see Return of the King. It was awe-striking, horrifying, and astoundingly relevant to contemporary issues in world politics and history. Yep. You've guessed it. I refer to the one, the only Fog of War.

You may be curious just how it is that a documentary could garner from me such respect and admiration previous to ever having seen it. Well, you probably aren't but I'll tell you anyway. The film is, essentially, one hour and forty-five minutes of interview with eighty-five-year-old Robert McNamara (a man who was one of the strategists behind the fire-bombing of Tokyo, Yokohama, and 65 other Japanese cities and who later became secretary of defense to Kennedy and later, to evident grand-slam jerk, LBJ). Clearly, the film would offer a unique perspective, one neglected by historians and pundits.

And it did. McNamara is a man with great wisdom who has made great mistakes. He shares his lessons candidly and honestly. And to sit at the feet and simply listen will always be one of the great pleasures of my life so far as history and poli-sci go. The man is clearly haunted, but he understands human nature better than many who strut and parade their wisdom and opinions today. The film is riveting (despite being, in my opinion, about ten minutes too long) and is a shoe-in to my dvd collection. No matter what, you mustsee this film.

And in summary: You must go see Fog of War ASAP.

(Download the press kit in PDF)

The only movie reviewer who holds opinions to which I pay heed has both finished his Top 100 films list (complete with reviews for each) and begun what looks suspiciously like a blog. James Berardinelli's ReelViews has long been the only site to which I turn when investigating film opinion. While I don't always agree with his selections or ratings, he writes smartly and gives reason enough for his thoughts that I can easily tell whether something is worth pursuing by guaging his writing.

Having accepted Paulo's challenge, we've begun a Photoshop Tennis match (with commentary by the inimitable Jett Superior). He's posting the match play by play on his site and I'll be posting the entire match in all its potential glory here once completed. We'll be playing ten rounds (five volleys each) and should be posting one or two volleys per day.

Vidblog #14: ...THEN I might Date Her

My Top 100 Songs of All Time
Please realize that this is an extremely subjective list (as it must be) and that means that in three months, this list would be completely different. Well, not completely, but certainly noticably different. I also realize that I don't have nearly the musical experience of say Jimmy the Hart. But hopefully you'll be able to have a bit of fun with the list.

1. Havalina Rail Co. - "Proportion Thing"
2. Yann Tiersen - "Comtine D'un Autre Ete: L'apres Midi"
3. Medeski, Martin, and Wood - "Uninvisible"
4. John Coltrane - "My Favorite Things"
5. Oingo Boingo - "We Close Our Eyes" (from live Farewell album)
6. Miles Davis - "So What"
7. Natalie Cole - "L-O-V-E"
8. Cream - "Sunshine of Your Love"
9. Ludvig von Beethoven - "5th Piano Concerto"
10. Stevie Wonder - "I Believe"



11. Havalina Rail Co. - "Worst Days"
12. Starflyer 59 - "Things Like This Help Me"
13. Fiona Apple - "Paper Bag"
14. Diana Krall - "All or Nothing at All" (from Live in Paris dvd)
15. Thelonius Monk - "Straight, No Chaser"
16. Toots & the Maytels - "Broadway Jungle"
17. Benny Goodman - "Sing Sing Sing"
18. Vince Guaraldi - "Christmastime Is Here (vocal)"
19. Anita Kelsey - "Sway"
20. Israel Kamakawawo'ole - "Somewhere over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World"



21. Weezer - "In the Garage"
22. INXS - "Never Tear Us Apart"
23. Stan Getz - "Girl from Ipanema"
24. - "The Spider-Man Theme"
25. Weezer - "Why Bother"
26. Coldplay - "Don't Panic"
27. Toshiyuki Honda - "There'll Never Be Goodbye"
28. Zbigniew Preisner - "Song for the Unification of Europe"
29. Average White Band - "Pinking Up the Pieces"
30. Dave Brubeck Quarter - "Time Out"



31. Ray Charles - "I Can't Stop Loving You"
32. Kristen Korb - "Fever"
33. Brian Setzer Orchestra - "Americano"
34. Violent Femmes - "Kiss Off"
35. Elton john - "Your Song"
36. Umebayashi Shigeru - "Yumeji's Theme"
37. Beck - "Loser"
38. Daft Punk - "Da Funk"
39. Guns 'N' Roses - "Sweet Child of Mine"
40. Ella Fitzgerald - "Mack the Knife" (from Live in Berlin)



41. U2 - "Beautiful Day"
42. Lambert, Hendricks, and Ross - "Twisted"
43. Sublime - "Summertime"
44. Stéphane Grapelli - "Manoir de Mes Revês/Daphne"
45. Dizzy Gillespie - "Groovin' High"
46. Alanis Morrissette - "Uninvited"
47. Pearl Jam - "Better Man"
48. Dinah Washington - "You Go to My Head"
49. Havalina Rail Co. - "Total Depravity"
50. Squirrel Nut Zippers - "Hell"



51. Soft Cell - "Tainted Love"
52. Metallica - "One"
53. Blind Melon - "No Rain"
54. Fiona Apple - "Across the Universe"
55. Trevor Jones - "Promentory"
56. Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong - "Cheek to Cheek"
57. Live - "All Over You"
58. Moby - "Porcelain"
59. They might Be Giants - "Minimum Wage"
60. The Foo Fighters - "Everlong"



61. Harry Chapin - "Cat's in the Cradle"
62. Hoagy Carmichael - "Hong Kong Blues"
63. Mungo Santa Maria - "Watermelon Man"
64. Modern English - "I Melt with You"
65. The Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Under the Bridge"
66. Cake - "Short Skirt/Long Jacket"
67. Etta James - "At Last"
68. The Monkees - "Last Train to Clarksville"
69. Beck - "Where It's At"
70. Django Reinhart - "Nuages"



71. Havalina Rail Co. - "Winter"
72. Plankeye - "Beautiful"
73. Michael Andrews featuring Gary Jules - "Mad World"
74. Joy Electric - "Burgandy years"
75. Hoagy Carmichael - "Huggin' and Chalkin'"
76. Elvis Costello - "Veronica"
77. Asight Unseen - "Slide"
78. Dave Brubeck Quarter - "Unsquare Dance"
79. Midnight Oil - "Beds Are Burning"
80. Steve Taylor - "The Finish Line"



81. Dave Brubeck Quarter - "Blue Rhondo a la Turk"
82. Bare Naked Ladies - "Tonight Is the Night I Fell Asleep at the Wheel"
83. Joe Satriani - "Cryin'"
84. Richard Wagner - "The Ride of the Valkyries"
85. Steppenwolf - "Magic Carpet Ride"
86. The Offspring - "The Kids Aren't Alright"
87. Matthew Sweet - "Girlfriend"
88. Lenny Kravitz - "Fly Away"
89. AC/DC - "You Shook Me All Night Long"
90. Dean Martin - "Volare"



91. Charlie Parker - "Orinthology"
92. Frank Sinatra - "Across the Sea"
93. Simon & Garfunkel - "The Sound of Silence"
94. The Police - "Don't Stand So Close to Me "
95. Van Halen - "Panama"
96. Green Day - "Basketcase"
97. Elvis Costello - "She"
98. Brian Setzer Orchestra - "You're the Boss"
99. Chris Rice - "Deep Enough to Dream"
100. John Williams - "The Imperial March"

I thought about writing a little something about each song like I did with my movie list, but honestly, though I love music, i don't love it that much.

Cool Pictures Ahead!
Here's something: computer books are hell to read. No really. Sure they're informative and pragmatic - but so was Hiroshima. In the end, books that endeavor to instruct on a given piece of software (whether Microsoft Excel or Macromedia Flash MX) are atrociously dull. You know why so few people read the instructions? Because they turn one's mind to cheddar cheese in such intimate fashion that the mind cannot even retain 96% of the information gathered because it is so cheesey.

That was until i read Mark Clarkson's Photoshop: Secrets of the Pros. Well, i still had to skim in technical parts, but the concept was so cool that i am inspired. Clarkson hosts ten Photoshop Tennis matches with twenty contestants vying mano-y-mano. What does that mean? you ask? It mean an academic decathalon! Uhm, no. That's not it.

Well, here's an explanation of Photoshop Tennis from its orginators at Coudal Partners:

What is P'shop Tennis? It's a very simple idea. One player creates a layer in a photoshop document and emails it to the other. Each player progressively adds a layer until the match is over, either by reaching ten volleys, a player's withdrawal or mutual consent. A guest adds comments and the whole thing happens and is displayed in real time on a Friday afternoon. Finally, the people watching vote for a winner.

Coudal Partners, it seems, hosts semi-almost-regular, offical matches in the game and while some of the archived matches I've seen are pretty meager, some of them are totally rockin'. And the ones that Clarkson developed his book around are positutely stunning. You can see some of the official matches here to get an idea of what I'm talking about:

Or you can check out my own five round go (i was so excited by the idea that i had to immediately test myself to see if i have the chops for such a battle - between you and me, i think i could hold my own despite my amateur status):

The Dane vs. Michael Cossarwal
A Photoshop Tennis Mini-Match

So okay, here's how it goes down. Two people pass images back and forth successively adding a layer to the image, building upon the previous designer's work. Players usually agree on a set of house rules prior the match (e.g., image-size, number of rounds, themes, etc.). Players can import graphics from outlying software as well (e.g., Illustrator, Freehand, Flash, Maya, etc.), but the final product is a Photoshop layer. The contestant then flattens his work and sends his "volley" to his opponent and waits for a return. It seems the usual match is about ten rounds (five per player) and each designer has an hour to work on each volley.

To further give you an idea of what's going on here, Seth will try giving an explanatory play-by-play for the mini-match linked above:
• Volley #1: The Dane has the serve and sends off a fairly straightforward (though subliminally angry) image of a jet flying high (officers of the peace, please note that it is not Jett who is flying high - thank you).
• Volley #2: Michael returns his serve by playing off the jet theme and signaling that the battle is on. He also incorporates the red targety thing as well and gives the whole game a rather bloody feel with the prevalent Red theme.
• Volley #3: The Dane, uncharictaristically pacifistic, volleys back a big loving heart (swiped from the titles of "I Love Lucy") that pushes Michaels war to the side.
• Volley #4: Michael agrees that we should "Make Love Not War," but specifies that it should be Ghibli-style (prolly the less said about this, the better) by incorporating a photo of Totoro. He retains The Dane's heart and the words, "MAKE LOVE," but the jets and war-mongering have gone the way of the dinosaur. In their place, Michael throws in grunge and cacophany.
• Volley #5: The Dane finishes off this mini-match by tossing Michael's dark and gritty left to the image's floor, enhances it's vibrance and declares it a disaster-area. He brings the image back to an uncluttered purity with a deeply resilient clouded sky. You may notice that the UFO/jets streaking across the sky are fashioned from Totoro's chest tattoos (??).

Did that help you see what's going on in one of these "matches"? Actually, i'm pretty jazzed about the concept (obviously) and am hoping to participate in some real-life matches. Any Photoshoppers out there who'd like to play? I only know personally two people who can use Photoshop, but 1) i don't know if they'd be into the game and 2) they don't have home-access to the software. So? Anyone? Anyone? I'm open to challenges :-D