Tuesday, January 30, 2007

I'll be back... soonish

There are a patterns I've become aware of with me and blogging. Among them:

a) If I say I'm going to write something, I'm probably never going to.

b) Whenever I write something that might get peoples' attention, I get hung up in someway and can't really get back to blogging for a bit.

I'm making progress with the first one, but the second one seems to be going full force. I've been pretty sick for the last two days with a lot of pain on the left side of my face. Sinus infection? Impacked wisdom tooth? No, aparently just neck problems again. If I ever do become an English teacher, I swear I'll be a posture nazi in class. My bad habits really have cought up with me, and all the folks that nagged me over the years were right. Stupid counter culture tendencies! The trick is going to be getting the point across to that next generation without nagging, since the nagging seems to be what gets in the way of good sense.

Anyway, two cracks of the neck later and about 70 to 80 percent of my pain has gone away. Wish I'd gone that rout before the not so cheap antibiotics were bought, but lessons have been learned. As soon as I get my homework caught up with, I'll get back to comments and posting. Till then, take care folks. Try not to sit on your tail bones or lay on couches with your head at a right angle from your body.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

HB2124 puts the "anti" in "anti-choice"

When Del. Bob Marshall introduced the Marshall-Newman or Marriage Amendment, adding the first prohibition to our State Bill of Rights, one of the main points of defense made by him and his supporters was that it would be passed by voter referendum, thus allowing the people to decide. Though much criticism was and still can be made about the actual language of the bill and how clearly it was presented to the everyday voter, there is a sense of democracy to be argued in this reasoning. Curiously, he does not seem to feel this same sense of democracy necessary for the perhaps equally controversial matter of abortion.

1. § 1. That if and when the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is overturned, allowing the states to by their laws once again regulate abortion, the law in the Commonwealth of Virginia rendering abortion a crime, prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade, shall be reinstated as it was in effect on June 30, 1970. The Attorney General shall publish legal notice statewide that, in his opinion, the decision is overturned and that Virginia's law is as it was prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade as it was in effect on June 30, 1970. The Attorney General shall publish statewide notice of the change in law, along with the following law governing the criminal offense of abortion, amended by him to comport with contemporaneous nomenclature, references and standards (section numbers to be assigned by the Virginia Code Commission):

Any advocate of state rights who has even casually studied the history of Eisenhower, Robert and John F. Kennedy's confrontations with governors Orval Faubus, Ross Barnet and Gorge Wallace over desegregation has had to confront personally the reasoning that our principles should be held as the integrity of our character until those principles supersede our humanity. Conflict with this idea can be attributed to "humanity" being an abstract term. It can also stem from a common moral repulsion towards the idea that ends justify means. Many people (myself included) often associate that philosophy with past atrocities throughout history where such thinking was held as absolutism. Yet in these three cases, where the federal power of our republic had to physically (particularly in the cases of Little Rock, Arkansas and Oxford, Mississippi) intervene on state and citizen resistance to the equal distribution of rights, and the benefits of equal opportunity to optimum education assured by those rights and the supreme court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, few people will debate the justness of those interventions, even though in different circumstances such interventions might go against their own principals of government power. This justification, to me, is rooted in the defense of the ideal behind one of the most fundamental phrases that defines our nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I evoke all of this as a preemptive response to accusations of hypocrisy. It is, after all, true that I support judicial and/or constitutional overruling of state laws prohibiting the union of two homosexuals be recognized and permitted the rights and benefits associated with marriage. I support such because though that first sentence of the preamble of the United States Declaration of Independence has been subject to extensive reinterpretation over the years, its evolution of meaning (from referring to the equality of all white land owning males, to the inclusion of race and sex) has been in accordance with the philosophy that even our constitution must be somewhat open so as to better accommodate its underlying intent beyond the limits of any one generation's perception. I support such federal intervening because I feel that these laws against homosexual rights have and are being introduced by representatives that are moved by the same reasoning and justification that invoked Gov. Ross Barnett to say, "the Negro is different because God made him different to punish him." There are notable differences between my reasoning for federal intervention and my criticism of Del. Bob Marshall's bill for not allowing Virginia to decide upon abortion. More so I am interested in the inconsistency of his logic.

The first thing that needs to be realized about this abortion bill is the hypothetical element that governs it. Most people seem too preoccupied with the controversy of abortion to address the fact that this bill would prohibit virtually all abortions only in the event that the Supreme Court ever overrules Roe v. Wade. With the Senate and House both controlled by the Democratic Party, the conceivable likelihood of a Democratic president in 2008, and the failure of Bush's attempt to nationally define marriage as between a man in a woman prior to Democratic control of congress, I'm more than a little skeptical of such an overruling happening next week. Granted, our Supreme Court judges are pretty conservative. Still I'm simply unaware of any case that threatens to make this an immediately feasible scenario.

The reality is, if Roe v. Wade is ever overruled, it could be years from now if not decades. In such circumstances only one of two possible results could occur. Abortion would either become illegal on a national level or it would be given to the states to individually decide upon. The latter scenario, which would apply to this bill, would not be granted to voters or even the then current figures of office to decide upon. The very right to choose the best course for our individual state, that the Supreme Court would find as belonging to us, would be deprived by this bill. Instead we would automatically return to the legislation as it stood in 1970. That's 37 years from the present and who knows how long from the hypothetical day of reinstatement. By such time, a whole new generation could be in office and engaged in Virginia politics. Scientific advancements and studies might shed new light on the issue. Economic conditions may change in some notable way. Any number of things could occur, but as long as this bill stood as law, we would be back to what was thought the best course of action in 1970.

The irony of this bill when compared with Del. Bob Marshal's marriage amendment is apparent. The inconsistency in his logic is clear. This is not a bill to prohibit abortion; it is a bill to deprive future generations of Virginians the right to make that decision, were the option to do so granted them by the federal government. Nice one Bob.

Friday, January 26, 2007

An extensive look at HB1661: Adultery; definition.

HB1661 has ben generating a bit of buzz thanks to Richmond Sunlight. In some ways I feel people have given it a level of dismissal deserving of such a petty waste of time. Then again, giving each change proposed to section 18.2-365 of the Code of Virginia further consideration, perhaps they should.

The first change in the bill is the term "sexual intercourse" being replaced with "carnal knowledge." To a degree this makes sense, since sexual intercourse is usually defined as either strictly being vaginal penetration by the penis or less commonly as penetration of any bodily orifice by the penis. If Del. Rob Marshall wishes to include other acts as adultery, a term other than sexual intercourse does seem practical. Carnal knowledge is a commonly used term in the code of Virginia. It certainly doesn't seem as biblically loaded a term as sodomy. However the sexual context of knowledge seems to be biblical in root, though my etymology on that is not concrete. Deviant sexual intercourse could have been another option, though that might frame the acts in a negative connotation... other than categorizing them as illegal.

The next change is the addition of "male or female." This is not actually a necessarily change. The original "any person" was perfectly satisfactory in implying that the third party could be either the same or opposite sex as the accused. The original text never implied that it was exclusive to heterosexual activities beyond the possible interpretation of sexual intercourse, which would be covered by changing the term to carnal knowledge.

The only explanation for this addition of genders that I can muster is to draw further enthuses on homosexuality. Del. Rob Marshall caught the state's attention last election with his amendment to the state bill of rights that not only reiterated state law's prohibition of gay marriage, but also deprived any other form of union from the "the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." Consequently, unbeknownst at the time by most casual readers, the amendment's language put the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples in just as much jeopardy as homosexuals (short of the fact that heterosexuals could fix such by getting married). It would seem that his motivation for redefining of adultery, practical or not, would be to find yet another way to pursue his own gay agenda against homosexuals. Why else would he we be so inclined to explicitly state either gender when it's already understood?

The final and most important change is what would appear to be a definition of the term carnal knowledge as it applies to this law. Since most bills in Virginia state code do not bother to define carnal knowledge, this would seem rather considerate of him. However, this is not really a definition, but rather a typically vague (of him) list of what acts carnal knowledge "includes." It is implied that this is not an entire list of the acts, which raises the troubling question: what else constitutes carnal knowledge? To gather some idea, the first place to start would be to examine what is included and consider what is of relative similarity, then to consider what isn't included and consider why.

What we begin to find in Marshall's list is a pretty basic list of standard sexual acts. Reading along in sequence, there's nothing to be surprised about the presence of cunnilingus and fellatio, but what follows has quickly become the center of attention with regard to this bill: the inclusion of anilingus.



What provoked Del. Bob Marshall to feel this was something important enough to include?

Was he watching Queer as Folk in hopes of finding new ways to once again stick it to the gays?

Is he simply obsessed with sex?

Has Kevin Smith moved on from corrupting the minds of our youths to corrupting the minds of our delegates?

Will Bob Marshall pay for the therapy bills that are sure to amass from googling anilingus?

These are all some pretty basic responses to reading Marshall's bill that I've heard in one wording or another. (Some of them were the first few things that ran through my head anyway.) They're all pretty reasonable reactions, but when I stopped joking and really thought about it, none of them seem to touch on what really troubles me about this act being included.

All ye easy to gross out... bear with me on this.

In the case of sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, and anal intercourse, sexual climax in at least one partner can be achieved to varying degrees of satisfaction from the stimulation of either/and/or the penis, prostate, clitoris, labia minor and majora, vaginal canal and/or the Gräfenberg spot. With anilingus being oral stimulation of the anus, none of the primary nerves for sexual climax are being stimulated. Arguably, if someone's tongue were long enough they could accomplish prostate milking or possibly similar stimulation of the Gräfenberg spot orally, but I imagine in most cases those (particularly the latter) would be fairly exceptional accomplishments. It should also be acknowledged that sexual stimulation of any kind can in some people induce sexual climax due to either abnormal fixation or premature disorder, but again these are the exception and not the norm. Apparently, anilingus is commonly performed prior to fellatio to induce arousal, not climax.

Returning to my point that the first place to start would be to examine what is included and consider what is of relative similarity, he has included a sexually arousing act that does not commonly (if normally ever) induce climax. Think about it. The implications that this could open up are pretty disturbing. By this logic could mammary fondling, buttocks grabbing, or even an intense kiss be considered adultery? Granted, anilingus is a bit more provocative (to put it mildly) than a kiss, but exactly where would this legally draw the line between more foreplay associative behavior and actual sex?

I ask again: What provoked Del. Bob Marshall to feel this was something important enough to include? Why this and not something else? After all, as it is listed, he considers anilingus as an isolated act to be adultery... as if someone would simply lick a partner's posterior without progressing to any other behavior.

Honey, I have a confession to make.

What is it dear?

Last Thursday when I said I was working late...

Yes dear?

... I let someone lick my anus.

Wouldn't an erotic massage (not necessarily to be confused with the therapy of the same name for treating premature ejaculation, though it is, to my knowledge, not culturally or legally accepted to be performed in the states and basically the same thing anyway) be a more convenient and realistic means of cheating on a spouse? Seriously, what drink too many gets a tongue in your butt?

This bill may seem funny, but it's not a laughing matter. I believe that is the answer to why Marshall included anilingus: people are too shocked to take the implications seriously. Social conservatives will gladly vote it in as people did what they thought was simply a gay marriage law, and what we will be left with is a very loose definition of what constitutes adultery that could reach out to many less extreme areas of marital infidelity.

As I expressed in my last entry, I do not support adultery. To say the least, I am very skeptical of the government interfering with such matters on any level beyond recognizing it as grounds for divorce and facilitating such proceedings. I am not trying to imply that it is ok for someone to cheat on their spouse on any level, be it a grope, kiss, or sex. These are simply matters for the parties involved to sort out. This bill will only make government inexcusably bigger and more intrusive. Wasn't that the exact opposite of what the defining philosophies of the Republican Party are supposed to stand for? I can think of few finer examples of a prime target for legislative reform than this bill and the man behind it.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

On Political vs. Personal Morals and Ethics and the Matter of Adultery

Following the observations of my pervious post, the difference between philosophies towards taxes between the Democratic and Republican parties is often seen as a reflection of their more defining stances towards government as a whole. The Republican Party traditionally has recognized itself through the philosophy that government should be small, while the Democratic Party is usually seen as promoters of bigger government. To what degree the latter is an accepted stance or a label emphasized by their opponents is of little interest to me right now. In my lifetime (and I confidently assume much before it) the idea of bigger government has not been one polarized to a single party as is often proclaimed. Both parties have to varying degrees accepted the necessity of larger government in times of war, and it has been the Republican Party that has predominately pushed such leaps of governmental power as Homeland Security where many Democrats were skeptical.

While the circumstances of wartime can be argued as exceptionable, the social arena offers little excuse. While issue of national and public security such as gun control and the war on drugs (neither issue I consider myself a strong supporter of incidentally) have a certain weight to them that, right or wrong, carries with it reasonable intentions. The rise of social conservatism (particularly from the Reagan era to present) also is not devoid of good intentions. However, there are some pursuits of social conservatism that do seem to lack that degree of reasonable intention within their aims. More so, these and many other pursuits (if not in truth all) of social conservatism undermine any sincere philosophy on small government.

As I slowly creep away from my teens, I've begun to reconsider two areas of my beliefs system. As I become more and more unsheltered and exposed to the circumstances of youths, adults and peers and their personal lives, and I make observations about my own, the first area that has come into reevaluation for me is the concept of moral flexibility. This term, being one I have traditionally held in a negative context, I've come to redefine as the antonym of absolutism. This observation should not be confused with similar conclusions found in a libertine or other more anarchistic philosophy. (If anything it is closer to a pragmatic one.) The point being that unlike some idealized world, the reality that we live in often offers too many variables for an oversimplified black in white approach to account for. Like a foreign object within one's body, what goes unaccounted for proves often to be severely detrimental.

Naturally, not all things are equally complicated. There are a few issues where we can for the most part universally agree are wrong. The easiest being rape. However, even rape seems to find some rare more subtle scenarios complicated. These are usually due to matters pertaining to the exact definition of rape and the conditions of the charges. Still, with acknowledgement of some gray matters in the extreme fringe, the predominant body of what we all can clearly recognize as rape is pretty much universally disapproved of, to put it mildly.

These observations conclude by the second area of reconsideration, which is my view on what the government, and particularly its legal system, is and is not an adequate solution for. There are things I may ethically or morally disagree with to varying levels, but do not feel are the government's job (if anyone's) to enforce.

The law is a system of rights and wrongs. In a sense it is an absolutist system but, due to its degree of extensive elaboration, not an inherently bad one. Still, in some circumstances an issue is too abstract for it to resolve in what is probably the most beneficial way. It's also worth considering that what I may disagree with is not founded on a clear and present danger to the public but upon a more abstract moral principal. Among many things, what I find particularly problematic in doing such is that, by the rational of equality, I might have to likewise accept laws formed purely upon the abstract belief system of someone I do not agree with. Regardless of what degree that I am a religious person, the logic goes that if you permit theocracy to any degree, you invite all corruptive and liberty-depriving dangers that such entails. Some things simply make more sense as a part of one's personal moral/ethical code than as something to be imposed on others.

To bring this to a more topical scenario, let us consider the matter of adultery.

I cannot say that I am a supporter of adultery by a long shot. I understand that there are scenarios where circumstances are not as black and white as we'd like to make them (such as those of someone in an abusive marriage) but anyway you cut it, I can't really support the action, only understand why some people do it. Faithfulness to a lover is a moral that is pretty deeply ingrained in me. At the age of 21 I've never been married, but I've also never cheated on a girlfriend in my life on any level. I have even known circumstances worth some sympathy had I done so. I acknowledge that dating and marriage are very, very different, but I'm not approaching these stances from pure idealism. It is a matter that I hold stern within my personal ethical code, with some small degree of flexibility towards others, but overall a general disapproval.

That the government should need to become involved with the basic infidelity of two people has always struck me as odd. To be clear, I mean that adultery is actually a crime that could lead to a penalty unrelated to grounds for divorce and matters of distribution and custody that pertain to divorce. I would never suggest that it should be removed from areas of law pertaining to divorce. A common scenario in adultery that I find more unfortunate than outrageous is where one or both parties attempt to maintain a marriage long after it has clearly become too unstable or otherwise unreasonable. On the other hand, selfish infidelity seems just as common a scenario if not much more so. In either case it would seem to be a pretty significant indicator that a marriage is at least in trouble if not hopelessly disintegrated. That is, assuming that the third party was not brought into the equation with the consent of the spouse, a factor that, though not to my preference, the law does not leave any room for. Furthermore, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but I'm not aware of any condition in the law that states that failure to report adultery (i.e. both parties resolve the matter on their own) would not be the same as failure to report any crime. Instead it simply imposes government power on the sex life of two married individuals. It's probably not the most enforceable (or enforced) of laws, nor is it an effective deterrent in the face of the vows that are commonly being broken in the process. In the end it strikes me as a fine example of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Adultery, consensual or not, is a matter for a married couple to sort out and when they can't do so on their own, it is then that the courts should be utilized be it through suing or divorce.

Republican Delegate Bob Marshall (a poster boy of social conservatism, if not flat out regressionism) has introduced a new bill to redefine adultery. In the near future I plan to comment on its nuances. For now I felt it worth discussing the topic more generally.

Why on earth am I attempting to write about taxes?

Good question.

My best guess is that when the Bible's logic, through Tim's logic, made unicorns exist... it also made this seem like a good idea.

Throughout the years there have been a few philosophical stances that have allowed the Republican and Democratic parties to define themselves and their differences from one another. The most consistent of these has been taxes, which both sides seem to cling to so stubbornly that one begins to wonder how greatly it might come at the expense of the nation and its many diverse states and providences. After all, one must tax the people to provide them with the services that are the purpose of government. Tax too much and it really can hurt both citizen and commerce. Few people like to pay taxes; they do want good schools, a fire truck that will show up when it is needed, and hospitals that will keep them alive though. A reliable nursing service to help with the care of dependent elderly family members is also nice. In short, if you want things, you got to pay for them.

On the other hand, what if you are paying more than enough to cover all those and many other essential needs? What if the problem is simply that the money is not being used properly, with the optimum efficiency? Thus the idea of reform usually springs up. Everyone is familiar with fire and brimstone radiovangelist sermons about pork barrel spending. (Anyone smell a tonal bias? Yeah, watch out for that.) Sometimes when a knife is drawn to remove fat, it removes good meat along with it. Sometimes it carves all the way to the bone. Perhaps the butcher’s sloppy. Perhaps quality is not his aim. Maybe it’s not even their fault. If you see the heads of a service branch all sitting in big cushy chairs from having more funding than they need, giving them a budget cut does not mean that they are going to make the adjustment by trading their cushy chairs in. That’s the problem with reform: it’s easier to effectively reward than to punish.

It’s not always the case though. There are times when a middle man can be cut without disrupting quality in the name of some tunnel vision efficiency. Reform isn’t a bad idea, it just needs to be used realistically.

In general I favor what could be called the Democratic model, or more precisely, to increase taxes when and where necessary while offering numerous breaks as quality incentives, but I’m offering no solutions. Nothing spurs my distrust more in this area than a cure-all solution. The ideas that we must always raise or always lower taxes to aid the economy and well being of the people are simply inorganic. Imposing them on a city, county, state or nation without regard for the actual situation within that governed body will always prove problematic.

I’d sincerely like to think this will be first and last time I discuss taxes on this blog for a long while, if ever. With the increased accessibility to state bills being introduced, thanks to Richmond Sunlight, I think I’ve finally found that niche in local politics for now and felt that in a round about way this entry would help set the tone for some of the entries I hope will soon fallow. Taxes are a far cry from my area of expertise, and I hold no illusions as to otherwise. In fact, this began as an intro entry on a bill unrelated to taxes, until I realized how overbearing it was becoming. I really do tend to go on and on a bit with these. I'm working on that.

So, consider this a small olive branch to any readers on the right and a fond reminder to readers on the left of how obnoxiously wishy-washy I can be. :)

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

"Who ya gonna call?"

This would appear to be the only good news I'm probably going to find today, but despite a lot of things not going very well in my world, it makes even me smile. Between this and TMNT, 2007 is looking to be a pretty good year for children/teens of the 80's. That is... if they ever get the game finished.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Fun Quiz

I have a special love-hate thing going with stupid internet personality quizzes. (Vivain found a good one.) This one made me happy...

...mostly because it said that I'm THE JOKER.

The Joker
Mr. Freeze
Dr. Doom
Green Goblin
Lex Luthor
Dark Phoenix
Poison Ivy

Friday, January 12, 2007

Tim's faith trilogy

The computer I normally do a lot of work from has not been online and I'm finally doing a bit of solid short story writing like I've been trying to throughout the holidays. If these two issues weren't keeping me from blogging, I have a strange feeling I'd probably finally get around to that old "How Does My Ethic/Moral/Belief System Work?" entry that has been inevitable since I started this blog. I'd probably also be keeping up with and commenting more on my friend Tim's blog. Tim tends to be my philosophical sparring partner, though we rarely find the luxury of a firm disagreement. He has a sort of trilogy of postings on faith up right now, which I recommend.

1. On fallacies and faith

2. What if the Blasphemy Challenge had been a scam?

3. How the Bible implies that unicorns exist

I only call them a trilogy on account of their being consecutive. He has written a few other notable entries in the past as well, like this one and this one.

I'm a sucker for these kinds of discussions and hate seeing them go by without comment. Any thoughts?

Have you heard Little Glass of Wine?

Paul has put up a new song on his myspace page called Little Glass of Wine. It will be on the duet CD that comes with your ticket when you go to his and Devon's V-day show. Best way to spend Singles Apreciation Day if you ask me! Anyway, go and listen! It's a wonderful song and who knows how long he'll keep it posted!

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Why do comments pages take so darn long to update?

Been seeing this a lot lately and I'm pretty sure it isn't just Blogger. Be it my blog or others, from the main page it can say that there are zero comments, but when I bring up the page, there might be two or three even! I didn't catch on until I recently replied to comments on my own blog and noticed the number had not changed an hour later. Sometimes refreashing fixes it, but mostly it dosn't. A few hours later all will be well most of the time. Still it's annoying having to check each comment board to make sure there really are no new messages.

Monday, January 01, 2007

7 things most people (other than close friends) probably don't know about me

This seems fun enough. Nobody tagged me, but what the hell!

1. The earliest jobs I seriously wanted to have when I grew up in as close to chronological order as I can recall were...

A "beach bum" (according to my mom)
Marine Biologist
Gynecologist - because I wanted to deliver babies
A trip-hop artist
Filmmaker (primarily a director)
Singer songwriter

2. When Light House let me work on an independent film project, the near end result was so disturbing that Shannon Worrell apparently asked the director of my high school, Ernie Reed, if I was mentally ok. He was outraged... until he saw the film. I'm not really sure what they were expecting from a 16-year-old that had listed Blue Velvet and Jacob's Ladder as favorite films (along with other not so disturbing films like Seven Samurai) on his application, but the fallowing days of editing were hilarious in retrospective. In fairness to Light House, they were still a pretty new group and it really was a messed up little film. Her and Temple were great help and I had a lot of fun. Shannon would easily make my favorite people in C-ville list.

3. Brady Earnhart once said that some of my songs "make Bob Dylan look like a Haiku artist." Compliment or not, I consider it one of the most flattering things anyone has ever said to me.

4. Though I'm really not a programmer, I once programmed a "3-D" first-person maze in GW-BASIC. Think of the caves from the original Ultima, if you've played it.

5. I have a fear of meeting members of DMB due to the fact that every first time encounter thus far has involved some random up-close view of one of their orifices. It's a pattern I'd like to keep nipped at the bud.

6. I helped with some of the zombie and gore make-up (it was not my design though, I just put the stuff on them) for the rather Tromaesque film "Eat Me." It was a short notice situation where the director needed all the man power he could get and one of the actors new I had some background in horror (originally I was suggested to help with writing the lyrics for the musical numbers but a professional band was found to handle it). At first I was willing to also play a zombie in it as well. I hadn't been given a script or a significantly accurate summery before coming to the set. So when I was finally filled in, I every so humbly decided to turn down being in the... um... "climax" of the film, when shooting came to it. I might be visible in the far background of the rave scene though.

7. My favorite three-flavor mix of ice creams is green tea, ginger, and peanut butter.

High Rotation:

The Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet

Duke Ellington - Mood Indigo

Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation