DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

For your consideration… on the left we have Virgil Donati, Australian drummer extraordinaire, as pictured in the liner notes of the 2002 Planet X release, MoonBabies.

On the right… Edward Scissorhands.

OK, maybe they’re just fraternal twins.

Isn’t it ironic that the political party known as “conservatives” wants nothing to do with conservation?

Here’s Vice President Dick Cheney’s famous quote on the subject: “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”

Much has been written about this, and it makes for interesting reading, because U.S. energy policy will affect your daily life (whether through conservation or polluted abundance).

Ralph Nader’s essay, Dick Cheney and Conservation, provides an overview of the issue, in a convenient 2.5-minute read:

Federal policy over the past century has largely failed to promote an energy system based on safe, secure, economically affordable, and environmentally benign energy sources… There is an alternative. Three decades of [research] undeniably show that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are superior energy options for society.
But embarking on that path requires overcoming the power of the oil, nuclear and other conventional fuel industries to which both the Republicans and Democrats are indentured. Under the thumb of the dirty fuel industries, Congress and the Executive branch have refused to adopt even the most modest, common sense measures.

A report from the History News Service examines the role of conservation throughout American history in a piece called Conservation — An American, and Republican, Tradition. I’ll quote the passage that describes how I feel about it:

Conservationists deflated what one historian has called “the myth of superabundance” and advanced a new ethic of regard and restraint concerning nature. The early conservationists … saw nature primarily as a resource for human use, and they claimed economic well-being as an outcome of conservation policies. But their utilitarian approach was weighted with a deep sense of moral responsibility for the future, for posterity. They struggled to leave us a legacy of open spaces, protected natural wonders and sustainable use of natural resources.

This week, the US has started a war on Iraq. The Bush administration wants us to believe this is about 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack. It’s a convenient lie for Bush, and he has been reviled for it by anti-war activists. The truth is, there are a lot of reasons to want a regime change in Iraq, and some of them are even good reasons.

Somewhere in that mix is a pretty lousy reason — a desire on the part of Bush and Cheney to secure Iraq’s oil for U.S. consumption. Whether Bush plans to take it by force or simply install a government that is sympathetic toward trade with the U.S., I think this is a huge component in Bush’s justification for the war… or else we’d be fighting North Korea, arguably a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq.

In the context of war, U.S. citizens might be expected to pull together to support the war effort. During WWII, the government’s propaganga office pushed hard for citizens to conserve, because military leaders recognized that limited resources could affect chances for victory. Check out these old wartime conservation posters:

In a short but insightful piece called When Uncle Sam Wanted Us, Sierra Club magazine asks the question, “Isn’t there something more patriotic we can do than buy a new SUV?”

Despite war and rumors of war, turmoil in the Middle East, and energy crises at home, missing from the national dialogue has been talk of “conservation,” let alone personal sacrifice. Instead, in the aftermath of September 11, President Bush urged the American people to go shopping.

Subsequently, the Bush administration tried to push through the Alaskan drilling bill as a part of the new federal budget. The effort was defeated by a narrow margin, but Bush and Cheney’s mission is clear: there is no need to conserve, because we’ll provide you with all the oil you can burn, at any cost, e.g. $100 billion for the war on Iraq, and the exploitation of a 1.5 million acres of Alaskan wilderness.

Has the world changed so much in 60 years that conservation is no longer a useful strategy? I think not. We have an illusion of abundance, and it’s a dangerous thing. See CNN.com for details.

Republicans fail to get Alaska refuge drilling measure, by the narrowest of margins.

“The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, rebuffing the Bush administration on a top energy goal it had hoped to win with a wartime security appeal.”

Here’s the thing — it’s not about the animals. I wasn’t losing sleep about the polar bear dens. This is about poisonous lifestyles, self-destructive behavior, and short-term thinking. It’s about special-interest groups buying favorable laws. I’m very happy to see some elected officials taking a stand against it.

I just realized Google does telephone-number lookups. Type in a phone number, and it shows you the holder. Example: 202-456-1111 (look at the very top of the results list)

Here is Google’s description of this feature: Google PhoneBook

Wouldn’t you know — they even have an opt-out! “Have your residential or business phone and address information removed from the Google PhoneBook”

As previously reported, I’ve taken the first steps toward construction of a rehearsal and recording space for my drum kit. We made a detailed plan, worked up a detailed estimate, and now we’re making a detailed plan. Again. The estimate was too high, about $6000; it’s time to compromise.

The initial design called for a freestanding room to be built within the garage. The walls and ceiling would be built from metal studs, with a layer of sheetrock on the outside, mineral fiber (aka rock wool) insulation in the stud bay, a layer of soundboard on the “inside” surface, then resilient channel over the soundboard, and a layer of sheetrock hung on the RC. If necessary, we could add a second layer of sheetrock inside the room.

The floor would float on a layer of Auralex Sheetblok. All sheetrock joints would be taped and sealed. Silicone caulk and expanding foam would be used throughout. The studio would be airtight, except for an exhaust fan to be built into a soundproofed corner closet (which would also house noisy computer and recording gear).

The surrounding room would have been sealed (more caulk and foam) and treated to a layer of soundboard prior to construction.

But this plan has a problem, even beyond the price tag: the garage has an 8' ceiling, so the studio would have finished out at 7'2'' — too claustrophobic, especially considering the cost, and potentially restrictive of tall boom stands (whether for mics or cymbals).

The only way to cut the budget is to change the architecture. We’ve dropped the room-within-a-room idea, even though that approach offers superior isolation (aka transmission loss). The new plan hasn’t been fully spec’d yet, but in general, we’ll do this:

• seal existing walls and ceiling with caulk, expanding foam, and soundboard
• hang resilient channel, possibly using strips of Sheetblok under the RC for additional isolation
• hang a layer of sheetrock on the RC, forming tight joints and taping all seams

We’d still need to build two freestanding walls (because the studio doesn’t fill the garage, but is stuffed into one corner), and these would be framed with metal studs and insulated with mineral fiber.

This approach should cut some materials and even more labor from the budget. Also it buys us back at least 4.5'' of vertical clearance. But the final estimates aren’t in yet.

The problem with soundproofing is that it requires so many layers of materials, and a lot of time to assemble them all. There’s no cheap way to do it.