So, Rock Band 3 with its new keyboard. Since you can use it to play the guitar or bass part (which I'd want to, since there are a lot of songs without Keys support yet, not to mention the pre-Rock Band 3 songs that charted pianos/melodicas/synths/etc. to guitar), I thought maybe it would make some things easier to play. So, naturally the first thing I try is the guitar part for Freezepop's Less Talk, More Rokk. Ouch. So I go update the calibration settings, but still suck it up pretty bad.

Yeah, there's some adjusting to be done. I suspect the timing window may be a little smaller than it is for hammer-ons/pull-offs, but most of it's probably my play. It seems a little odd as a righty, but my left hand (or at least my left pinky) is probably more game-ready at the moment. There's also a little adjusting that has to be done -- playing native Keys songs and guitar/bass ports -- to not think of the guitar fingering; this is particularly noticeable on chords. Although, Bohemian Rhapsody, which is ranked as one of the most difficult Keys songs, wasn't much of a problem on Expert. So your mileage may vary.

Of course, I tried a couple of songs on Pro Keys mode as well. I tried Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, Pt. 1 on Medium first, and it was pretty straightforward, but the stream of notes takes some getting used to, and I'm not completely used to it yet. Later, after I had done my trials with vanilla Keys mode, I decided to try a slightly harder song, Everybody Wants to Rule the World. And forgot to take the difficulty off of Expert. I stumbled at the beginning, but then got into a good groove and thought I was doing pretty well, and then "Oh shit, the track moved, where am I? dammit, ffffffffffffffuuuuuuu-... Oh good it's back; thank you, overdrive." So that'll be fun to get used to.

And yes, Free Bird will kick your ass.

[Well, this is late. Weeks later than I intended, and several months after it would have been most relevant. But I spent the time making graphs, so I might as well.]

So, why was I upset with the press on January 21st, even before the news on Citizens United v. FEC? Those of you who bother reading what little I do on Twitter may have an inkling. But I wanted a little more than 140 characters and a bit of time to do a bit more justice than my fast reaction.

A follow-up to my latest post. I didn't mean to imply that the consequences of an interpretation should be disregarded altogether, but rather to express a certain restraint in deference to the subtlety that is often lost in these discussions, a subtlety that I felt I hadn't yet grasped enough to condemn the Court for its interpretation of the Constitution. (The danger of the decision and that the Court failed to exercise judicial restraint and defied stare decisis were more evident.) I suppose you could say I hesitated because I didn't know how to back up the opinion I wanted to have in the context of con law. Caution in the presence of the obvious, perhaps. (Plus, I was in a bit of a mood to dis the press already. More on that later.)

I realize I still don't have a full grasp on all the issues at hand, but having done a quick read through Stevens's dissent and some of the amici, I was reminded of some aspects to the interpretation of the First Amendment that, frankly, I should have recalled. The majority's opinion was covered more, and seemed less subtle in comparison (correct me if you disagree!). I'm actually still not sure where I stand on the much more narrow matter actually at hand in the case, but I now feel more comfortable in being annoyed at the Court's overreaching decision. So, I join you, liberal friends, and say RAWR. But let us still tread carefully in matters of free speech and remember that an appreciation of subtlety in political matters, though harder to explain -- by definition, and particularly in sound bites -- is essential to productive civil discourse.

Given my rate of posting, I'm sure no one's holding their breath for me to weigh in on Citizens United v. FEC. It actually is the sort of thing I'd post about, since it seems likely to be a fairly dangerous ruling in light of the consequences it could have on future elections. But I think decisions like this deserve a consideration in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution, not just a quick reaction to the consequences. And I know enough about con law to know that I don't know enough about the particulars here to give a fair commentary on the interpretation. At least not until there are some more reasonably detailed summaries, because I'm not reading all 183 pages of the opinions. Hopefully SCOTUSblog delivers, because I expect the less specialized media to be more focused on the aforementioned consequences.

Per Weekend Editon's Sunday Puzzle (a bit late, I know)