Johnny Coli

This isn't "service." You are paying to see the artist. That you expect one thing, but see something else doesn't mean you didn't get to see the artist peform. What if the artist came out onto the stage and read his/her lyrics into the mike? What if they didn't play the song you came to see? The artist isn't required to conform to what you want. Forcing him/her to shut up and play only their material is censorship. If you only want to hear the songs, don't go. Show me any musical artist that tells the fans before the show, on the ticket, etc. exactly what songs they are going to perform (clearly a classical performance or a known play falls in this category, but the posters in this thread are arguing about musical groups). I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's certainly not the norm. What types of changes should they be allowed to make? Is there some acceptable level of leeway that you would be okay with, before they crossed your line as to what is acceptable? So it's okay for some artists but not others. At what point in an artists carreer is it okay to cross your imaginary line of acceptability...the line where they don't have to do what you want? We are talking free speech right? At what point do they earn the right to deviate from your expectations? I believe they made that statement at a show in London. The outrage was from people who weren't even at the show. So, according to your rules, an artist isn't allowed to excercize free speech even when you aren't even there. They have the right to speak their mind, and you have the right not to go see it. Bingo. We're talking about a sentence or two between songs. They absolutely have the right to say whatever they want from the stage as long as what they are saying isn't against the law. It's free speech. The fact that you paid money to see them doesn't eliminate that right. It also doesn't give you the power to tell them what they can or can't do, or what will be acceptable to you. It's political free seech. The fact that you find it uncomfortable, or don't want to hear it doesn't mean they can't open their mouths between songs. Stipulating what an artist can and can't say during a performance is censorship.

"Shut up and do your art" is not a valid position to take, as it is censorship.

39

Why should an artist have to separate his/her politics from his/her art? Just because the art doesn't always overtly reflect their personal politics doesn't mean that the said artist shouldn't ever be able to voice what that political view is. Your purchase of a concert ticket or going to a gallery doesn't negate their right to free speech. If you don't like what they have to say, whether it be through their art or not, don't go or support them. If you pay $50 to see Don Henley play Hotel California, or whatever, and at some point in the show he states he's opposed to the war (not sure what his stance is, or what he did to freak out the people in Atlanta...I'm just using it as an example), why is he at fault? Because he made you uncomfortable? Because you paid $50?

I guess I have a couple quick points regarding this, because this seems to come up all the time. First, musicians have just as much right to air their politics as much as anyone else does. Two, how could you not know the politics or political leanings of an artist you enjoy? And lastly, don't go. Don't pay to see them if you are offended by how they vote and which political views they subscribe to. You know that a guy like Bruce Springsteen or Neil Young or Jello Biafra is going to say something political during the show. They've done it in the past, they're going to do it again. If you know that it's going to happen, and you go to a show anyway, how is it their fault? How are they being out of line? Why is it such a shock? Countless country musicians spout their hypernationalism every single chance they get. I assume that that's part of the appeal for their fans, because personally I think the genre sucks. Therefore, I'm not going anywhere near a country musician performance. I don't care what they're saying to a bunch of rednecks any more than they should care what some guy with a blue mohawk is singing to a room full of kids. There's not a thing Tim McGraw could say that would turn me further away from him as an artist than I already am. I do not support conservative musicians in any way at all. That's my right. I suppose this could be expanded to any entertainer. If you don't like what they're saying, or you think they're uninformed, etc, don't support them as artists. They won't be in the spotlight for long if the majority of people paying to see them didn't agree with at least some of their views. I don't see the big deal.

Happy B-day, BGIM. Next time I'm out that way, we will imbibe at the Rusty Nail. Until then, it just so happens that I'll be drinking this fine evening, and one of those drinks will be tipped in the honor of thee. Cheers. EDIT: Ho-lee Moe-lee! And a big HB to Harry Dean Stanton as well, at 80 years young!. I will definately be knocking one back for mine and yours' favorite Repo Man.

Saw this on YouTube and thought I'd share. It's Neil Young jamming with DEVO from Neil Young's movie Human Highway (1982). To describe it as genius doesn't do it justice. As some dude wrote in the comment section, it's a life altering experience. It's also pretty hard to pull yourself away. So hard in fact, that I've played it three times now, and will probably leave it running in the background all night long. Join me. Johnny Spud

You're going to have to treat your cultures with cipro. Here's an article by Roche (Elimination of Mycoplasma Contamination in Cell Cultures(pdf)). Cipro is your best bet. They give your chances as being 75%, but I would think that's pretty optimistic. You'll have to play around with the cipro concentration because at high concentrations it's going to kill your cell line. It's also a pretty significant time investment, possibly weeks to make sure you don't just knock down their numbers to indetectable limits. They'll come back, and the ones that do will be resistant to cipro. Then there's no stopping them.

It's mycoplasma contamination.

You're not that far off, there, dude! Everyone is manufacturing "antibiotic" pillows and crap, when they ought to be seeding their environment with the right kinds of bugs. A lactobacilli a day, will keep the candida away.

They were here first!

Sorry man. I'm a microbiologist, and have a real soft spot for Arhcaea, which is really what Halobacterium are. Woese is me every time I hear them referred to as "bacteria." That being said, this a just a form of photosynthesis, like plants do, but without the chlorophyll. They're remarkable little dynamos, and survive in some incredibally harsh environments. There's absolutely nothing they can't do, or can't be trained to do.

It's a membrane-bound protein, so you could conceivably pack them in pretty tight into some hydrophobic matrix. I would imagine they'd be pretty stable in a system like that, as proteins are quite happy under those conditions. The only problem I could see would be how much conformational change the protein needs to go through in order to get the desired effect. It is my understanding though, that the actual excitation/relaxation is done by the retinal molecule attached to the bacteriorhodopsin. It's the retinal that is light-sensitive, and it's the protein that facilitates pushing the protons across the cell membrane. If you're just looking for a color change, and not for proton translocation, you wouldn't need the protein to move that much, if at all. The retinal/chromophore color change is really all you'd be interested in. So you'd just need them packed in pretty tight in some crystalline/lattice monolayer. At least that was my understanding of the article. They've actually been working with these types of phototransducing molecules for a while in bioengineering and nanotech research. Bacteriorhodopsin was the first membrane protein they got a structure for, way back in the early 70's. They've done a fair amount of work using them in getting current through membranes, as they are proton pumps, after all.

There are few things I dig more than swilling cheap beer in my socks, and that is swilling cheap beer in my socks and scouring the internet for great bands I've never heard of. One of those bands is The Goons, straight from our nation's capital (that's Washington, DC for all you illegals). Here's another link. Here's a video from a show at the Black Cat in 2000. (You'll need Quicktime...it's not my website, so get off my back.) Hey You And another from the Black Cat in 2003...a bit more polished, and a great tune. Stormtroopers of Good Faith Some of you older kids will say to yourselves, "Hey, the singer looks (and sounds) kinda like Gary Floyd from The Dicks." Well, I said the same thing. The Dicks were a legendary Austin, Texas band from the early 80's. They had a pretty significant punk rock single called "Hate the Police." I can't find any video of The Dicks, but here is a link with some history and pics. Notice the freaking resemblance between Serge of The Goons, and Gary of The Dicks. Some of you less older kids will say, "Hey, I thought 'Hate the Police' was a Mudhoney tune." No, while the Mudhoney cover of the tune is most-excellent, it is a Dicks tune. Both singles are worth owning, and are both worth a fair amount of scratch. Anyway, I can't find any Dicks video, but thanks to YouTube, you can see an early live vid of Mudhoney performing "Hate the Police."

Saw it monday. Hated it, but that's for another thread. SPOILER ALERT: You saw about 3/5ths of this flick, so to wrap it up... The kid is Superman's son, and kills one of Lex's henchmen with a piano when Lois is threatened (assuming you know she snuck onto Luthor's yacht, with her kid in tow). Oddly, the movie never really explores this plot tidbit, which you think would be pretty freaking relevent and a nice plot device. The kid threw a piano. I'd say that was a pretty neat plot twist, wouldn't you? The crytal that was tossed into the ocean by Luthor starts growing a new continent, partially composed of (surprise! ) kryptonite. [Major plot hole to follow] Meanwhile on the yacht...Lois' hubby shows up just in the nick of time to get trapped on the capsizing (sic?) yacht, because the growing continent runs it through and cuts it in half. They almost crawl to saftey, but a wave knocks a cabin door into Lois' head, knocking them back into the flooding cabin locking them in to drown in the cold dark sea. But wait! The kid has super powers and get's Lois and his non-biological dad to safety. NOT! I guess his super strength is limited to tossing pianos, or maybe they lost a page out of the script, because Superman has to show up just in time to raise the ship and pull them to safety. They fly off in Non-Biological Dad's seaplane. Superman goes to confront Luthor, but remember, the new continent is made of krytonite, So...when our hero confronts Luthor he's without powers, get's his ass kicked, get's stabbed with a piece of kryptonite, and ends up in the ocean. Lois, the kid who tosses pianos but can't open doors, and Non-Biological Dad fly back because Lois knows that the new continent is made of kryptonite. How will they find the drowning Superman? The kid! The kid uses his super powers to find the submerged Superman....NOT! They just see him, fly down, and rescue him, flying away. Ho hum. Superman regains his powers as they fly further away, because, you know, the freaking continent is made of krytonite. So, Superman goes back, kryptonite be damned. Remarkably, even though this giant CONTINENT MADE OUT OF KRYPTONITE is the size of Maryland, AND MADE OUT OF FREAKING KRYPTONITE, Superman flies under the magma, lifts it up out of the water and flies it into space. Luthor's henchmen get killed in the process, and Luthor and Parker Posey end up stranded on an island, without the other crystals because Posey dumped them out the helicopter door. They were on the continent MADE OUT OF KRYPTONITE that Superman tossed into space. They seemed kind of important, you know, the whole fortress of Solitude thing, but now they've been tossed into space. Oh well, I'm sure the writers of the sequel will straighten that out for us. Well, Superman was totally wiped out from flying the KRYPTONITE CONTINENT into space, and falls back to earth, crashing in a heap in Central Park. Ensuing hilarity with doctors trying to "save" him by air-bagging him (he doesn't need our damn Yellow-sun air, fellas) and break their needles trying to stick him (he's the freaking man of steel people). Anyway, he wakes up, and like a super pedophile sneaks into his kid's room (the kid whose only power is tossing pianos, as far as we know...can't wait for the sequel) and pats his head...creepy. He flies around with Lois a bit...end of story. EDIT: Yeah, what Acor58 said. Sorry bud.

I'm wondering if they could use the civil component of the RICO laws to sue his family. Here is a link to RICO. Here is a link to the Civil Remedy section (in particular part "c"). Triple damages could bring it up to 90 cents, and you could stick his wife with the legal bills.

The'll go after the money because his family cannot reap the benefits of his crime. From The Financial Express

Several articles have addressed this. Here are two suggesting that civil suits may continue. Time.com: With the death of former Enron CEO Ken Lay, his case legally died as well. But the civil claims against him will live on Forbes.com: Lay Cheats Justice EDIT: Here's one more. All Headline News

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Next up, David Ortiz.

There’s been a fair amount of analysis on this thing in the past 24 hours (much of which has been dispensed by people who haven’t actually read it…this means you, Trent Lott) and a lot of speculation as to what it all means. Here’s a Cornell Law link to an html version, which is much easier to read through than the pdf linked to yesterday. Hamdan v Rumsfeld (Cornell law html link) Here’s a link to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is mentioned multiple times in the opinion, and along with Geneva Convention Common Article Three was the basis for some of the opinion of the majority. Anyway, from the opinion: Basically, all of the analyses I’ve read on this decision seem to concur that what SCOTUS did was repudiate Dubya’s position that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave him the authority to set up military tribunals not bound by rules of courts-martial or the Geneva convention. In the Court’s opinion this was a clear over-reach of his Presidential powers. Additionally, Dubya and crew have maintained that the detainees don’t fall under the aforementioned rules because (this is in Part VI, D ii, for those who want to scroll to the actual text): The Court disagrees with this argument, and pretty specifically lays out why: So, SCOTUS has ruled that Al-Qaeda actually does fall under Geneva Convention rules. Thus: That’s pretty huge, really. The Administration idea that they can do anything it wants with regards to trying these detainees has been refuted by this court. Bush will have to try these individuals with a certain amount of established rights under the Rule of Law. However, the Court did not rule on a length of time that these detainees could be held, so it appears they could be held indefinitely, or as long as the War on Terror continues. Breyer’s concurrence has led to much of the chatter specifically surrounding what “could” be done to grant Bush the power to try these detainees in the manner that he wishes to. Interestingly, Breyer takes a shot at Thomas and the other dissenters, yet still gives Bush that glimmer of hope that he can do away with due process. That statement of course has led to a GOP Congress stampede to ram through legislation giving Bush the power he wants. Get ready for a fun-filled few weeks before the mid-term elections. My question, though, is would Congress have to both give Bush his right to use tribunals of his determination, but would they also have to pass some legislation saying that the President in this instance, and the US for that matter, doesn’t have to abide by the Geneva Convention, a treaty we signed? Seems like a major headache for international relations, not to mention it would put our soldiers at risk. Yes, I know Al-Qaeda doesn’t abide by the Geneva Convention, but we’re not a terrorist organization and we should be well above that, especially in the eyes of the rest of the world. I know many of you don’t care with regards to this point, but it should be made none-the-less. It would seem that the big picture here is that SCOTUS has put a check back into the balance of powers, one that has been ignored by this administration for five years. The Bush/Cheney Administration position of a unilateral Executive in time of war took a big hit. It looks like they’ll at least have to get some type of legislation from Congress to move forward. Then Bush can add his 751st signing statement, ignore the legislation, and go back to doing whatever Cheney wants. All-in-all, geting some form of oversight on a President run amok is a nice Independence Day Celebration gift. Here’s some law blogs that have good analyses on yesterday’s ruling. Jack Balkin is a Con Law professor at Yale. In his Hamdan and the NSA dispute entry, he examines what this ruling might mean for Bush’s warrant-less wiretaps. In short, the Court has decided the President can’t go it alone under the AUMF without some legislative approval from Congress. Therefore, FISA would apply here, as domestic surveillance performed outside of the scope of FISA would be an over-reach of Executive power. In Hamdan as a Democracy-Forcing Decision he discusses how Hamden v Rumsfeld forces a return to the democratic process, and touches upon my question of how Bush and Congress could get around the Geneva Conventions. The faculty of Georgetown University Law Center has put up a faculty blog, and has a few entries on Hamdan. SCOTUSblog has several posts, of course, from various professors of law that some of you may find interesting. More on Hamdan Analysis: What Hamdan did not decide After Hamdan: Reclaiming Congressional War Power Legislative Supremacy, The Laws of War, and the Geneva Holding

It wouldn't be science if there weren't a few outliers in the data set.

The author seems to be equating old and dull with wise and responsible. Why would a healthy zest for life in your mid-to-late years be considered immature and unintelligent? His characterization of scientists as being immature, unpredictable and "unbalanced (!?!?!)" seems pretty generalized, and most definately wrong. The best scientists approach their field with a sense of wonder and excitement (and often whimsy), and a healthy drive to shine a light into that black box to reveal the mysteries inside. It is precisely that youthfull enthusiasm that makes them good scientists. Having worked in both industry and academia it is the old, stodgy ones that are a drag to be around. His final assumption that "the faults of youth are retained along with the virtues" is also a foolish presumption. Losing the zeal for living an exciting, enjoyable life should not be a prerequisite for being considered "mature." In sum, !@#$ him.

Surprised no one posted anything on this yet. SCOTUS ruled 5-3 that Bush overstepped his authority with regards to the military tribunals at Gitmo. Three of the RATS on the court, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (Roberts recused himself) were in dissention. Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo Here's the opinion. Hamdan v Rumsfeld (pdf) It's 185 pages long and I'm off to a lengthy meeting in about 30 minutes, but Marty Lederman at SOTUSblog has a very detailed summary for those that care. For a more detailed background on the case, here is the Wiki link to Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Here is the Wiki link to the Third Geneva Convention, which is relevent to the ruling and any discussion. The Volokh Conspiracy has a discussion on the Geneva article three interpretation, and the uproar over it in the conservative blogosphere. This should make for an interesting couple of days before the holiday break. Well, to some at least.