Hey, Z (and others) you said you were interested in info on Coachella this year. It will be May 1 and 2, tix after fees will be the same as last year, about $160 for 2 days.
The following is supposed to be a good list, but the official announcement is not until atleast Noon (Cali time) Sunday.
RADIOHEAD, PIXIES, THE CURE, KRAFTWERK, PREFUSE 73, THE THRILLS, ELECTRIC SIX, AIR, SAHARA HOTNIGHTS, (INTERNATIONAL) NOISE CONSIRACY, LCD SOUNDSYSTEM, YEAH YEAH YEAHS, BASEMENT JAXX, BRIGHT EYES, CURSIVE, T. RAUMSCHMIERE, PAUL VAN DYK, STEREOLAB, ATMOSPHERE, TURBONEGRO, THE BLACK KEYS, MOVING UNITS, THURSDAY, STELLASTARR*, THE MARS VOLTA, THE SOUNDS, SPARTA, ...AND YOU WILL KNOW US BY THE TRAIL OF DEAD, !!!, EYEDEA AND ABILITIES, SIDESTEPPER
In other news I went to jury duty today for the first time. It was Municipal Court so the trials were all misdemeanors; so nothing high-profile or anything that would last more than a few days.
I was called up with a group of potential jurors - the first group called, it was nice to get it over with - and heard about a case and (like everyone else) gave some biographical information for the court record but I wasn't selected so I went back downstairs and got a new driver's license (MVD was right next door, there was no line, took 10 minutes total).
The rest of the day was more reading (ahh, James Baldwin. Err, I mean this one), lunch with friends at various downtown establishments (service was slow at Tom's Tavern, but that was just the place we went to while waiting for the calzones to cook at Four Brothers (and when we got back they had given one of the 3 away. But it was all good, and I got to write 3 away. In related March tour news, no Phoenix show, yes SXSW) and leaving at 2:20p
2., 2-a.: I was not complaining that 8 years was too short for a president to rule. One thing this does is it allows for a certain level of instability, on a small scale. This helps alleviate pressure which holds off large-scale instability - revolutions and the like. Another, probably related, thing it does is keeps any one figure from dominating the nation. The first term is about figuring out where everything is and getting re-elected; the second term is about doing whatever the hell you want and however much you can because you can't be re-elected again.
What I was saying was that it seemed, to me, silly for Bush to say what he said, that America cannot be doubted. I continued that in 2-a so I won't repeat that. Also I will point out that while there is some shift in how a country is viewed when it changes head, the fundamental body of the country remains.
3. Adam wrote, in response to my 3: "Then the implication is that the relationship was cozy in 1991."
Let's see, IIRC Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, so the implication is that the US was cozy up until then. Which is true. So, no, I see nothing about 1991.
3-a, 3-b. As a response to what Adam wrote as a response to my 3-a and 3-b, I'm gonna reprint what I wrote from 3-b and add commentary:
[this is John's original]"If I had thought of it..."
This points to earlier comments about my writing my original comments while the State of the Union address was going on. I wanted to put down comments as they happened, to give my thoughts as they came, not, in my usual fashion, wholly over-wrought. The Kuwait bit was just what came to mind and typed it, nothing sinister, nothing conspiratorial, nothing grand.
"...I would've used a more recent example, such as Bush (or was it Powell?) saying that they would follow through with the vote in the UN Security Council authorizing the invasion (well, maybe "suggesting the invasion" would be better phrasing here),"
To clarify, this LA Times article begins "President Bush vowed Thursday to bring the confrontation over disarming Iraq to a head within days, saying he will push for a U.N. Security Council vote even if it means defeat for the U.S. request to use force." There was a resolution to the Security Council from the US, UK and Spain. The resolution was withdrawn because it was going to fail, and since there was no actual vote they could blame it all on France rather than the members of the Security Council that were not US, UK, Spain or Bulgaria.
I neither claimed nor thought that Bush was going to stop the invasion if the UNSC voted their resolution down.
I'm going to include Adam's response to 4 with my comments on his response to my comments at 8:34p, since these are linked/the same.
And I'm gonna leave the comments on Marxism (ala 5) until later as well
Wow. I just saw a new Simpsons, which seems like the first for a long time but it's actually my fifth this season. I'm still not sure what to think about Thomas Pynchon being there (that is I'm not sure I believe that one.)
I have now seen The Return of the King a second time. The small part of me that cares where Oscars go would all but die (again) if this got best picture. Special effects, supporting actors, I could maybe even see director, but not best film. It's just not there.
I liked the movie. I'll want to see the extended edition or whatever even though it will contain neither the death of Frodo or the destruction of the Shire. I have read but the first part of the first book (I tried before the first movie came out, I couldn't bear it, I approached it at the wrong age, in the wrong frame of mind) so I can't comment on Frodo living in the books. But I have seen the movies, and they're different. So for the movies specially with (what I'm told is) an increased concern with the fate/redeemability of Gollum and the Shire not being destroyed I'm pissed that Frodo lives. Forever.
I don't see "Settings" or "template" in the upper right. I also don't see the previous posts below (while sitting on this Create New Post page), so it may just be my archaic browser.
Made it to Glendale Arena for a hockey game. I wore a Red Wings shirt and a Coyotes hat. It was a decent game, I would've preferred much more exciting for the 3rd. Over the first two periods Phoenix had 8 shots on CuJo, 4 went in. In the third they got 5 shots on Legace; none went in. Also in the third they got 1 shot on an empty net in the last minute; it went in. So the Wings won the Shot on Goal race 46-14, but lost the Pucks in Goal race 5-2.
I had to shudder: Yesterday at work an older, balder guy called someone "A gentleman and a scholar." Then again maybe it's just me that hasn't heard that in about 11 years.
I will respond/reclarify a few things but later.
Errr, wait. I just typed in the above then hit "Preview Your Post." That gave me a new screen that showed it as it would be and said at the bottom "Publish Your Post." Then I hit that and that's it? I mean, I think so as my posts have been showing up eventually. Unless someone is cleaning up after me. So forget it, don't wait, I'm gonna continue to act like "Publish Your Post" finishes it.
Also, Z and whoever else was there: what/where was that Coffee place in Tempe that was more like a library with like lots of separate rooms and chairs and couches and you could go there and play CP and listen to people playing some trivia game, like we'all did. I'm gonna leave off the question mark cause I awk'd that sentence big-time.
1. Blog question: How does the time stamp work? That is, it occured to me that it doesn't make sense to report the local time; so maybe it is always set to Pacific Time. But then again, why would it offer the chance to change time and date anyway? For some reason I was assuming an integrity to the time; that is it was not possible to post-date entries like to before a game started, or some other event happened. Oh well, I was being silly. I'm going to post this one with my actual local time for when I finish it, so that it follows my previous message. After that, until I feel there is some sort of group decision, I shall just leave it alone.
2. I wrote "Also, no, this "war" did not start on American soil. Terrorism has been around as long as there have been nations/governments/leaders to terrorize."
3. Possibly the most clear response to this: the attacks on September 11, 2001 were not the first terrorist attacks against the U.S;, they were not the first ever acts of terorism. They were the first that really hit home for Americans but that's because Americans are collectively relatively isolated and ignorant.
4. But even there I'm using an odd definition of terrorism. Here, Terrorism: "1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear or submission so produced. 3. government or resistance to government by means of terror." (from Random House Webster's College Dictionary [1991])
5. I was responding to this statement: "Inside the United States, where the war began," (this is at the start of what CNN called section 2, "War on Terror", it was about 14 minutes in.)
6. Bush's statement could be said to make sense (in my mind) if he was merely referring to his own, self-declared "War on Terrorism", that is if he is referring to his declaring of this "war" as the start of the war.
7. I use "war" in quotes because war is between nations, between entities. Thus "War on Drugs" is a ridiculous name (along with, ehh, too easy/involved), as is "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism." Governments and individuals have been fighting dissenters and ....
8. My point was probably best re-expressed in 3.
9. [Note: this was a horrible sentence to organize, I'm not sure how to do so better. I used order of operations parentheses to help the reader parse it, more elegant suggestions are sought] Or, again: Someone (ignorant of, ignoring, or trying to hide/minimalize) (the world outside the United States and the history of the United States) would say such a thing.
1. Thanks for finding an online text of the SOU. I was merely making comments as Bush spoke, while trying to keep listening to his further comments. [Additionally I have a terrible time remembering exact wording, specific details, my mind tends to process a step beyond that - to where the information is no longer in words/images at all - and I lose the details. The downside is that such information is not easily translatable.] I was certainly not trying to distort anything that was said. And, for the record, you were correct about the referencing my paraphrases to the correct quotes.
2. "For diplomacy to be effective... no one can now doubt the word of America." It is problematic for anyone to trust the word of plural entities, specially ones that have a shifting membership. "America" doesn't have a word to doubt. It might be seen as more accurate if by "word of America" he meant "word of Bush 43," but it would be seen as even more accurate as "and now everyone fears America under Bush 43."
2-a. Put another way, world opinion of America isn't going to change drastically or permanently due to the actions of one president. Even 8 years is rather insignificant in the life of a country (well, most countries.) So it is important what Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc and their administrations did and said (not to mention Congress, the Supreme Court, etc).
3. The Kuwait "quote" was referring to the situation you referenced, or rather a specific detail of it. I wasn't even saying anyone said that, I was pointing to the the US's cozy relationship with Hussain and Iraq because he was the lesser evil.
3-a. I had also never heard the idea that Bush 41 wanted a war so he could get re-elected. Everything I have seen has attributed it to an actual lack of concern, or atleast a wish to keep on Iraq's good terms, and that the change of heart came after Bush 41 and company saw how the nation and world were reacting to the invasion.
3-b. If I had thought of it I would've used a more recent example, such as Bush (or was it Powell?) saying that they would follow through with the vote in the UN Security Council authorizing the invasion (well, maybe "suggesting the invasion" would be better phrasing here), that is that they would force the vote - even though France and Russia were talking about using their veto. That is, at this moment I can claim that the vote would've been 11-4 against and that no veto would be necessary - if they had not withdrawn the resolution we would be able to say for certain what the vote was.
4. You wrote:
"Second, believe it or not, the US is defending itself. We were attacked first."
Please clarify. When did Iraq attack the U.S.? I honestly have no idea what this refers to.
5. I think terms like "Communism" and "Socialism" and "Marxism" have gotten terrible associations (atleast in the U.S.) due to Cold War rhetoric. The Soviet Union and China are/were problems because they're totalitarian, not because they are/were Communist.
5-a. Democracy is the opposite of totalitarianism; democracy is not opposed to socialism. It would be simplifying to say that democracy is a form or philopsophy of government and that socialism is an economic system, but that's where I'll leave it for now.
5-b. Additionally I am not convinced that democracy is all it's cracked up to be. That is, I am not saying that I have a superior alternative in mind; I am saying that democracy has it's share of flaws, as does any form of government. I don't see American style democracy as the be-all and end-all of governmental forms, a thousand years from now people will laugh at our quaintness, our arrogance, our self-assuredness.
6. [But now I'm getting into dealing with collective judgements, something I was knocking up in 2, so please understand that I realize this, and am doing so in the effort of finishing this post in a more reasonable amount of time. And yes, I understand that others do this as well. But, to re-iterate/summarize:
D'oh, I forgot to fix the time for the last one so it's out of order. I wish various entities did better with dealing with the Arizona time zone.
Ok, his speaking during the tax portion was quite good. He is currently doing much better as a public speaker than he has in the past, even as recently as last State of the Union. He's still not good but he's show great improvement.
I have lost the quote that went something like "and no one can doubt that America's word can now be trusted" or "And now it is clear that America's word can be trusted," but that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard Bush say.
"Go ahead and take Kuwait, we won't bother you about it."
And later (again, not an exact quote, I don't have a transcript, yet)
"weakening the UN... encouraging dictators around the world to flaunt it's will." This is why he later says that we "will not wait for a permission slip to defend our nation." Because it's bad for dictators to go against the UN but it's fine for presidents
Sweet, double postage. Also sweet, my browsers blows. I might've mentioned this before, wait, no, I'm sure I've mentioned this before so I'll stop.
I'm not going to do a top 5 (or 10) films for 2003, I didn't see enough for me to feel comfortable doing so. (Translation: I'd have to include most every new movie I saw in 2003.) The best movie I saw in the theaters was The Sea, an Icleandic film that I think was released in 2001 or so (in Iceland, that is.) The best legit 2003 film I saw was, well, I dunno. That's the other reason I'll keep quiet. Maybe I'd say American Splendor, but it seems to me I'm forgetting something from about February.
But I will do a top 10 CD list. Again, I haven't listened to but a meaningless percentage of the albums released, but, well, I'm still fairly happy with my list for 2002 (and I think 2001 but I'm not sure on that one.)
Honorables: Black Rebel Motor Cycle Club - Take Them On, On Your Own; Cursive - The Ugly Organ; Kaito UK - Band Red; The Kills - Keep On Your Mean Side; Mogwai - Happy Songs for Happy People; Spiritualized - Amazing Grace.
10. The White Stripes - Elephant - their fourth best album.
9. Pretty Girls Make Graves - The New Romance
8. The Shins - Chutes too Narrow
7. stellastarr* - stellastarr*
6. Placebo - Sleeping with Ghosts - I hesitated, I had gotten the idea that this was their "mature album," which normally means that now they're safe, mellow, uninteresting; that now they suck. This is Placebo's most mature album but not in any of those ways.
5. Grandaddy - Sumday
4. Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Fever to Tell - Yes, "Maps" is a good song, but an album of songs in that vein would not be on my list. An album of songs like "Black Tongue" and "No No No" is quite emphatically.
3. Radiohead - Hail to the Thief
2. Super Furry Animals - Phantom Power
1. The Decemberists - Her Majesty, the Decemberists - And catching them at like 4pm at Bumbershoot was an afterthought, a well we wanna get here early to be able to make sure to get wristbands to see the Mouse and, well, they weren't who I thought they were. And now the only reason their other album Castaways and Cutouts isn't right up here too is because it was originally release in 2001 or 2002.
I thought the Pack had it. The Rams almost did. I didn't really see much of the AFC games, or atleast not when they were close.
Keith, the Gould was, well, erratic. Much more erratic than the Gaiman/Pratchett, which was solid without being terribly exciting (or, another way, Good Omens was funny/interesting/entertaining but I'm not making up awards or titles for it, it's not ridiculously good.)
The first two parts of Full House were, to me, rather dull. I've seen it all before, I guess; I didn't learn about darwinian evolution from bad textbooks from the 50's or bad textbooks from the 90's. Although the compare/contrast with Plato's ideas of essence/reality/ideal were interesting, enough so that I thought that was the main story as opposed to a footnote to Gould being picky about terminology.
Part 3 was, well, there was something interesting there, but he went about it in a horrid way, if you ask me. He started out by taking down others ideas that there are no .400 hitters because the pitchers and fielders have gotten better (and hitters not as much better.) Then he tried to show that it was because pitchers and fielders have gotten better (and hitters just as much better.) He talked about .400 averages being dragged down by the mean and barely mentioned the mechanism: lack of at-bats against the truly horrible pitchers (those that could get a job 40-100 years ago but aren't good enough to make today's teams.)
Part 4 was, again, boring. Except for the one part of the big chapter that was about bacteria. That was fascinating. And weird to think about.
So end result I'm much more likely to look for books on bacteria than books by Gould
I thought the Pack had it. The Rams almost did. I didn't really see much of the AFC games, or atleast not when they were close.
Keith, the Gould was, well, erratic. Much more erratic than the Gaiman/Pratchett, which was solid without being terribly exciting (or, another way, Good Omens was funny/interesting/entertaining but I'm not making up awards or titles for it, it's not ridiculously good.)
The first two parts of Full House were, to me, rather dull. I've seen it all before, I guess; I didn't learn about darwinian evolution from bad textbooks from the 50's or bad textbooks from the 90's. Although the compare/contrast with Plato's ideas of essence/reality/ideal were interesting, enough so that I thought that was the main story as opposed to a footnote to Gould being picky about terminology.
Part 3 was, well, there was something interesting there, but he went about it in a horrid way, if you ask me. He started out by taking down others ideas that there are no .400 hitters because the pitchers and fielders have gotten better (and hitters not as much better.) Then he tried to show that it was because pitchers and fielders have gotten better (and hitters just as much better.) He talked about .400 averages being dragged down by the mean and barely mentioned the mechanism: lack of at-bats against the truly horrible pitchers (those that could get a job 40-100 years ago but aren't good enough to make today's teams.)
Part 4 was, again, boring. Except for the one part of the big chapter that was about bacteria. That was fascinating. And weird to think about.
So end result I'm much more likely to look for books on bacteria than books by Gould
Hey, Gel, I just saw the political quizzes from your blog from Dec 28th. All three were quite silly, but semi-interesting anyway.
To support my claim that it was silly, for Quizilla I got two ticks left of center ("Liberal") just as you did but for this one I got an 8 (between Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton) compared to your 36 (this scale is 1-40.)
