hey, this kid's GOOD

Trust me - Canon in D Rocks

short term victory for rights, but it probably won't last?

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Federal Judge Grants Injunction on NSA Surveillance:

Anna Diggs Taylor, come on down. You're the next contestant on Name That Activist Judge. Taylor, a Federal judge in Michigan's eastern district, has granted the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the NSA's warrantless surveillance programs.

Ed then briefly summarizes the decision which was on 2 parts.  First, is the administration right in that the case can not go forward without revealing state secrets (no - they have publically admitted that the program exists and operates without warrents in violation of FISA and the constitution), and second, is there enough evidence that its unconstitutional to be subject to injunction pending final decision (yes, by that same admission).

Will the ruling stand up? Frankly, I doubt it. I think it should, but I don't think it will. It will be immediately appealed to the 6th circuit court of appeals, where I think that even if the court agrees with her on the basic premise, they will probably knock the case down on the basis of standing. The argument will be that the plaintiffs can't show actual standing because they can't show that their phone calls were intercepted without revealing details about the program not in evidence publicly at this time. Precedents support that conclusion and I fully expect the 6th circuit to rule that way.

But here's the problem: it makes the administration's unconstitutional actions immune from judicial review completely. It's a perfect mobius strip of logic: we can't tell you who is surveilled under the law because of the state secrets privilege, and if you don't know who is surveilled you can't prove you have standing. That means there is simply no check at all on executive power, something that constitution clearly did not intend.

Shit like that bothers me. Gee, I'm not sure why...

Maybe (with a more reasonable court), some of these more restrictive and executive-building aspects of the state secrets regs might themselves be rejected as unconstitutional restrictions on due process and free speech...probably not...

too much of a good thing? thatliardesmond would probably say y

lets see now...

• the original 1973 LP (scratched all to hell, 'cause hey, I was 2 years old at the time...)
• the first CD pressing (actually a gift to faireraven but, well, somehow I got it back...)
• the 2-track digital 1994 remaster from the Elements boxed set
  
• an actual 12" picture disc (of the album cover, both sides), acquired at phantasmagora before that place went away
• the 2-track mix-down of the 1975 quad version on the "Boxed" set cd release (gift from my father)
• the 2003 re-recording on 2-channel cd
  
• the same 2003 re-recording on dvd-audio surround, 5.1 dolby and dts
• the 2000 remaster hybred-SACD featuring
• the quadrophonic master from 1975 as a 4-track sacd
• a new remaster in sacd 2-channel
• the same remaster in normal CDDA format
• live versions from
• 1973 (side one only)
• 1978 (both sides, 3 different concerts)
• 1979 (both sides)
• 1981 (side one only)
  
• 1982 (side one only)
• 1983 (side one only)
• 1999 (midnight 12/31/99 - 7 minutes of side one)
• several excerpts and single releases
• plus the 1992 sequel (studio and 2 live versions)
• and the 1998 sequel (studio, singles, and 1 live version plus several live excerpts)

yeah, that's my Tubular Bells collection.

and yes, they really are all recognizably different and unique.  and unlike, say, Dark Side of the Moon, each subsequent remaster has been better than the previous, but I don't advise Virgin records push their luck...

and yes, i'm a geek.

Update: and i forgot to mention the Orchestral Tubular Bells...*sigh*