DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

The other morning on my way to the gym, I happened to hear “Standby (Looks Like Rain)” (from the new OSI album) and “Everyday” (title track from the Dave Matthews Band’s 2001 release, Everyday) in a row. I realized that both songs were my favorites from their respective albums, and that both songs are the last on their respective albums. It seemed unusual — how often does it happen that the last song on an album is the most appealing?

Certainly this is subjective, but what the heck, so is my entire website. You must be used to it by now.

Sitting there in the car, I could think of only one more instance: “The Cinema Show,” from Genesis’ amazing 1973 album Selling England By The Pound. But this stretches the definition, because it’s the next-to-last track on the album, even if the two are generally played together as one long song.

So I had to dig through my CDs. I found a few more favorite-last-songs. The list is revealing for reasons that shall become obvious momentarily:

• “Ice,” from Camel’s I Can See Your House From Here. This is an instrumental classic, showcasing Andy Latimer’s famous guitar soloing. “Ice” has since become a staple of Camel’s live shows; the versions captured on both The Paris Collection and Never Let Go are wonderful in a dim-the-room-lights-while-the-music’s-playing way.
• “Lady Fantasy” from Camel’s astounding 1974 album Mirage. But picking a favorite from this is like picking one from Rush’s Moving Pictures; every song rocks. “Lady Fantasy” is a first among equals, and like “Ice” is a staple of the live set.
• “Follow You, Follow Me,” from incredible-shrinking-Genesis’ …and then there were three… Minus the fact that this was the theme song of every high school’s senior prom for the early 1980s, it’s a great track.

And that was just about it. I found two more but they’re less clearly the strongest songs on their albums:

• “Available Light,” from the Rush album Presto. I was never very fond of this album, and it’s only been recently I’ve listened to any of it with any frequency. The other song in contention for the title is the third track, “The Pass,” which I find more rhythmically interesting, but slightly less compelling overall.
• “La Villa Strangiato”, from the Rush album Hemispheres. Unquestionably a great track, but it’s up against “The Trees” and even “Cygnus X-1 Book II” — and that’s three of the four songs on the album. Still, “La Villa Strangiato” has the edge.

You might have noticed a certain homogeneity in the above list: two albums each by Camel, Rush, and Genesis. It’s true that these three bands comprise a disproportionate percentage (about 20%) of my CD collection. But maybe there’s an argument to be made that progressive-rock bands are less likely to front-load the hits onto each album. Or even, progressive-rock bands are less likely to pen “hits” in the traditional sense. Or, maybe my tastes are just weird.

Another similarity: “Ice” is 10 minutes long. “La Villa Strangiato” is 9:35. “The Cinema Show” is 11:30. “Lady Fantasy” is 12:45.

Another similarity: three of those long songs are instrumentals. How the heck a pop/gospel tune from Dave Matthews made this article is a mystery even to me.

(In the above text, song titles link to mid-fi MP3 samples that I’ve prepared to give you something to listen to while you’re killing time. At ~100 kbps they’re thin enough to stream over any non-dialup connection, and the quality is still excellent; they’re the best-sounding streaming audio clips I’ve heard. Album names link to Amazon, in case you want to research the albums further or buy them.)

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”