elgaberino's Xanga

Racial Slurs = Racism?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:07:26 GMT

Are Racial Slurs the
Same Thing as Racism?

In your opinion, how accurate is this diagram? It makes sense to me that most racial slurs used today are not intended racism, but are used as jokes or as cuss words under duress, spoken by people who would deliberately avoid using or thinking these terms if it meant hatred or racism. It also seems sensible to conclude that a lot of racism is not spoken.

Thoughts?

In response to this post.

How "We" Should NOT Measure Success

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:01:53 GMT

Pondering the question raised: "how do we measure success?"

"We" do not measure success in any particular way. There is no "we" in measuring success. We each measure it differently.

I agree with the usual thought, that money or high-class snobbery are not good measures of success. There is probably no time when a human can say that he or she has truly "arrived," because tangible, quantifiable measures of financial security or mental/physical stability cannot establish any meaningful sense of happy finality in a mortal lifespan. The search for this true "meaning of life" type of success has baffled almost everyone ever.


	Sometimes success is just a matter of telling ourselves we're happy. But not really.

But it is wrong to backlash and say that we are all successful so long as we have the right mindset to enjoy. Success, by definition, is not available to everyone. Does that sound mean? It's not mean, nor is it unfair. It is eminently fair. The author of this post is not as successful at accomplishing his goals as he could be, but he has done a fair amount of slacking off in his life, by way of undermining those goals a bit. So he can hardly complain when anyone else seems more successful.

The goal behind redefining success might be to break up some exclusive club that successful people might seem to have. But this conceptual effort fails (irony, anyone?) to make success available to all, and instead makes a joke out of it, and ultimately abolishes "success" altogether. The concept behind "success" suggests effort toward an end, probably involving the necessity to overcome obstacles, and then the ever-important, eventual arrival at that desired end. Do not propose that by aiming for what we already have accomplished, we will be content, and thus successful. You will find that this does not work. Arguably, Vice President Al Gore found that out the hard way in the 1990s when he suggested a way to raise children's test scores. How? Simply making the tests easier, the Nobel Prize winner opined, would address the problem. It proved to be just a suggestion to essentially lower our expectations instead of doing a better job educating and parenting. His idea to shoot lower did not amount to success, just compromise. (And the ensuing Republican backlash against that was even worse.)

While nothing is guaranteed, a life filled with wise and discerning choices (or a life turned around in that direction if initially misspent) will usually lead to an objectively more successful result than a life squandered. In today's self-centered culture, many people are better at congratulating themselves than actually working to better themselves or anyone else around them. We want to believe we're doing well, especially when we're not. We want someone to lie to us and tell us we're succeeding so we don't feel like we're failing. The author's dad, who has scraped together a respectable, low-middle-class level of security for his family on three decades of prayers and sweat, is more successful, dictionary definition, than the twenty-something or thirty-something overgrown male children we see now who flake out on their girlfriends after impregnating them, proceeding to blow all potential child-support money on drugs.

True, some things are relative, but that doesn't mean everything is; success is limitedly relative, but not to the extent that everyone can be successful just by conjuring up a feeling of contentedness, or just doing what makes us happy. If we can all become successful just by thinking we are successful, without striving for a goal and accomplishing it, then success means nothing and might as well become an obsolete concept. This obsolescence or extinction of the concept of success, this new success by simply learning to rename our failures, is unhealthy for any culture and needs to be rethought.

Stop, Start

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:59:26 GMT

There sure is a lot of complaining going on right now. Everybody's conjecturing, arguing, presenting reasons why things are the way they are. We've had a little economic scare. The shine on the new presidency has gotten complicated by controversial bailout policies. People get mad at their employers so they blog at work instead of working and then get madder when they get laid off and have to blog from home. They spend money they don't have, then (of course) they can't pay. Then they wonder why businesses are going bottom up and the economy is shaky. It's really a pity. Never since sometime in the mid-90's has it been so hard to afford an SUV. The morality of America is summed up by two words: "self" and "anger." The morality of other parts of the world might include other words, but anger seems to be a more and more common denominator.

Everyone wants you to get angry. Well, anyway, politicians, professors, critics, religious leaders, artists, poets, musicians, movie makers, keynote speakers do. And that's a lot of popular voices.

In the immensely popular and critically acclaimed V for Vendetta story, heroism was protrayed as an angry mob and acts of terrorism in the name of an angry revolution reminiscent of the French or Bolshevic revolutions. In the events of the past decades, young men in the middle east have been increasingly brainwashed with anger and unconditional obedience, to the point of giving their lives to blow up civilians in the name of a deity. Christians in America have been encouraged to be angry and spiteful toward people on whom they have passed judgment, to the extent that some crazies have destroyed property or killed people, despite the fact that none of it falls in line with Jesus' teaching. All of this anger made things worse.

Now, it can be said that anger sometimes makes things better. The indignance of the men and women who fought for American independence drove them to protect the freedoms of the people from the power of the government. The anger of high-minded British men and formerly enslaved African men brought the european slave market to an end. The anger of Gandhi changed the face of civil rights globally. The anger of trade partners worldwide has forced China to at least pretend it is improving its own horrible civil rights record. The anger of environmental activists forced them to become clever and introduce "green" as a viable color not only politically, but in the marketplace, forcing conservatives to admit they haven't been paying enough attention to good stewardship of the earth's resources and environment.

But was it these people's anger, or in the end their ingenuity, that set them apart from others? Was the anger really necessary? Might there have been fewer losses along the way to success?

On Erykah Badu's first installment of her New Amerykah album series, which came out last year, the song "Twinkle" ends with a speech by someone named Saul that typifies the kind of directionless anger that now rises. (A quick internet search revealed nothing about Saul's identity. The author would be grateful for any insight from a reader-in-the-know.) He postulates that his listeners want to be left alone, unharassed in their living rooms, to wait out whatever is wrong with the world.

"Well I'm not going to leave you alone!" he cries, "I want you to get angry! I don't want you to riot, I don't want you to protest, I don't want you to write your senator, because I won't know what to tell you to tell him! I don't know what to do about the recession, and the inflation, and the crime in the street! All I know is that you've got to get mad! You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, DAMN IT! MY LIFE HAS VALUE!'"

Notice, he has no idea what he wants you to do, besides drumming up your indignation. Anger always leads to constructive decision-making, especially in large groups. (The author here pauses to conjure his best sarcastic facial expression.)

So while all these talking heads want you to get angry, turns out they want you to use your anger to further their special interest. Republicans, democrats, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, racial pride groups, environment groups, pro-gun groups, anti-gun groups. But can an angry mob make up for all the sins of a swollen, prideful country? Can it perpetuate the good things that keep us happy to be American, Canadian, Japanese, Brazilian, British, Irish, French, Arab, Persian, Israeli, Ecuadorean, Mexican or whatever the heck you're happy you are?

It appears that everyone is trying really hard to be angry, at least in the States, because it's better than being complacent. But is anger the opposite of complacency? I guess if there really were nothing else we could do, getting angry at someone or something (or nothing) might be the next logical step. But let's face it. We're not really at that point.

Seems like the real opposite to complacency is to implement simple solutions by a lot of individual people. Even a proportionally small spread of the following attitudes would change the face of society, for the better, in a significant way.

So here are some suggestions.

Our Debt is the Economy, so Stop Pissing Into the Wind.

Stop spending money you don't have.
Start living within your means.

Stop being trendy if it costs money. Invest in things that will last.
Stop voting for people who spend and print money that doesn't exist. Instead, detest waste, demand efficiency.
A culture that demands the government serve us - or get fired - will change a lot of things. Duh.
Unconditionally* avoid personal debt, and stop voting for social debt.

(*i.e., no matter what either of them is buying.)

     (Whenever we become more prosperous than we can afford,
     We'll pay for it with our jobs, retirement, happiness, peace of mind and even our freedom.
     What good is medical progress if individuals can't afford it and become slaves trying to get it?
     How much better do you think we'd be doing if a third of our money wasn't going to a government
     That props up failing banks, inefficient government agencies and medical research our insurance won't cover?
     Our economy has been running on IOU's that none of us can actually pay off.
     When the bubble bursts, it seems smart not to rebuild on another bubble.)
Stop blaming the banks, lenders and the government. Start taking responsibility for your money mismanagement.
     If each of us did this, the economy problem might just go away.

Stop letting
rich people
define fashion.
Be frugal & savvy; take pride in it,
and teach others.

Stop taking out loans for new cars. Buy (and own!) a car that won't devalue the first second you drive it.
Stop spending your time and money on entertainment and luxuries.
     Start spending that time and money on poor people, people who need help.
     (If you're already doing this, but you own a luxury car, I don't see how you're doing enough.)
Avoid kitsch. Promote class.

No Act is Random.   (Duh.)   Be Purposeful.
Stop blaming. Start doing good for individual people. (Stuff on this list would be a good start.)
     And if you stop doing good (or ignore this list), don't start blaming it on anyone else.

Stop thinking about how bad your life is (how fat you are, how sad you are, etc.) Make someone else's life better.
Stop demanding that anyone give back; "give-and-take" is just an excuse to stop giving.
     Be unconditionally generous.

(You are not what you take, but what you give.)

Self-Oriented Family is Dysfunctional Family, So
Self-Oriented Society is Dysfunctional Society
Stop being self-concerned. It's NOT different from being proud and selfish.
Start being someone you'd want to be around if you weren't you.

Stop gossiping and talking about other people.
Shut your mouth, make it a less destructive place.

Stop affirming yourself.
     (No one buys it but you, and let's face it, even you don't buy it.
     If you felt great, you wouldn't need to affirm yourself. So do things that are good for you.)
Start affirming others.
     (If they don't return the favor, you're probably not doing a good enough job affirming them.)

Stop defaulting to what feels good.
Be wise and sensible,
especially
when it doesn't feel good.

Stop obsessing about what you're getting out of your relationship.
Start doing things to make life better for your significant other.
(Chances are, barring unhealthy relationships, the problems are more your fault than you know.)

Stop assuming
that anyone,
besides you,
will pay for your mistakes.
(We're drowning in our own irresponsibility. )
Resolve to
weigh the consequences
of your decisions, then bear them.

Stop acting like sex is a necessity or some kind of frantic human right. (That's just an excuse for being stupid.)
Start treating sex carefully, like the special (and psychologically dangerous) thing that it is.
     If you're not sure what that means, just stop having sex. Seriously. Don't be stupid.
Stop watching movies and listening to music that make you feel otherwise.
Let your passion be controlled by prudence, not vice versa.

Stop acting like the things you do that "don't hurt anyone but yourself" don't affect your loved ones and friends.
     ("I'm not hurting anyone but myself" is a phrase that translates "I'm a jerk, and I'm pushing you away.")
Start acting like faithfulness and character...
     (the person you are when no one's looking, or when you're under pressure)
...are vital, because they are.

Stop keeping
a record of wrongs
done against you.
Spend that energy
noting the things people do
for you, or for others,
then credit them for it.

Ignore famous people who can't piece their own lives together.
Start watching and diligently mimicking stable people you know who actually apply some of this stuff.

Don't you dare ever even think about not sacrificing everything for your children.
Start raising your own walking-talking tribute(s) to the thankless sacrifices you're about to start making.

Stop bitching about and to your parents. Think of some things you've always taken for granted, and thank them.

Stop adoring celebrity children.
Spend that energy on those kids in your life.

In Public: it Might be Less Embarrassing if you Were Naked
Stop pretending there's any good reason to be rude. Start treating people with more decency than they deserve.

Stop taking your impatience and disappointments out on innocent bystanders.
Make a stranger's day better, not worse.
     (The fact that you're having a bad day is a good enough reason.)

Society & Culture = Your Attitude
Stop demanding your piece of the pie. Start earning it, and serve some up to as many people as you can.
Stop voting that the government do all the things you and your community should be doing yourselves.
Do them yourself.
     And next time you say "we should do this,"
     "we" better mean yourself,
     and maybe the people you're going to recruit,
     not anyone else.

Stop treating race and ethnicity like they matter.
Start treating people, every person, like they're the most valuable thing in the world, because they are.

Stop judging people. Honor them like they're better than you, especially if you don't feel like it.
     If you're tempted to judge or hate, think about your own shortcomings for a couple minutes.
Stop judging situations. Start trying to sympathize with other peoples' point of view.

Stop treating people according to
who you think they are.
Start treating people according to
who you should be.

Stop saying other people's hatred justifies yours. Love unconditionally; others will eventually note your example.
Stop idealizing violence. Start idealizing kindness.

The National Health Crisis: Thank You for Your Contribution
Stop leaning on coping mechanisms and comfort vices. They keep you weak and foster self-loathing.
Get mentally, physically and spiritually stronger by actually facing difficulty.
Stop eating junk. Commit a month when you don't to eat any meal you didn't prepare. PB&J baby.

Stop getting drunk and high. Drink more water, go outdoors.

Stop stressing. It's not that big of a deal.
(Most of the things you're stressed about today won't matter in five years. But your health will.)

Citizenship: Take Ownership, Dammit.
Stop voting to give more money to the government. Start demanding they stop wasting what they already have.
Stop idealizing politicians. Demand their respect.

Stop trusting the government.
Demand that it trust you.

Shut Up and Just Lend a Hand Already
Stop criticizing those who believe in higher good, even if you don't. Find something good and true and share it.
Stop arguing about abortion. Start helping unwanted kids and unintentional mothers.

Stop arguing about
who to blame
for unemployment.
Try to help someone find a job.

Stop acting like people don't have a right to disagree with you, as horrible as you think that is.
Start respecting the freedom of thought you both share. You don't have to agree.
Stop treating homosexuals like they're less than human.
     Affirm their human value regardless of your opinions of their lifestyle. Accept no other version of the truth.
Stop following religious leaders who think judgment or vengeance is our job and not God's.
     Do your homework and don't be deceived by evil people who enjoy temporal power and influence.
Stop pushing your sexuality on people, whether you're straight or gay.
     Have some dignity and apply the golden rule.
Stop being reasonably unkind. Be unreasonably kind.

Oh, and maybe stop arguing about the origin of mankind, too.
     (Assuming you weren't there, anyway. If you witnessed it firsthand, please accept our apologies.)
Instead, start doing something about its direction.

Stop being angry.
Start making sense.

Science Fu, Episode One

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:17:04 GMT

ScienceFu
A S e r i e s
Ben and the Say-Nothing Kid are Helping Me List...
The Problems With I n t e r w e b A r g u m e n t s
.
.
.

The post that started it all,
with ben's comment on it.

Dear Benman - (and Robin),

Introduction:
I get it. You think I'm one of those crusading Creation Science mavericks, secretly trying to brainwash people with my doltish Creationism rhetoric. You saw my critique of peer-review, and assumed that I am a retard who opposes science in favor of religion.

Phew. OK good news: that's not true. You must be so relieved. But while we're on the topic, let's think about you for a minute: who ARE you anyway? And why would you feel comfortable drawing such a huge conclusion about a total stranger, a real person, and then shoving that in that person's face? Your comment was unreasonable, and unnecessarily pissy (vanedave would use a different word, and nominate it for an award, but I like "pissy" better because it alliterates well with "petty").

Unlike Dick and Tom, there is nothing petty about internet debates. They're important, pressing, serious, necessary. In fact, national security might be in the balance.

C'mon, for reals guys. The correctness of the whole internet is at stake. I mean, we can't let anyone be wrong, ever. C'mon.

Would you apply a similar tact to a stranger in a coffee shop? Would you overhear what a stranger is saying, introduce yourself as a truth warrior, then make all kinds of assertions about his intentions and character? Please don't say yes. Don't even say maybe.

The comment typifies bothersome things about normal arguments, things that become amplified by the semi-anonymity of the internet. I started a mock point-by-point response, but it's too unwieldy and dumb. So instead, along with ongoing posts about music, expect to see regular installments. Elgaberino presents: a miniseries; Science Fu: The Problems with Interweb Arguments. We'll start at the beginning of your comment, but first let's talk a little about:

1. Generalizations
I call your comment "unreasonable" because your knee-jerk response is textbook Converse Fallacy of Accident.

Some people who scrutinize the scientific community are trying to bully people with their Creationist bias.

Gabe also scrutinizes the scientific community.

Therefore, Gabe is bullying people with his Creationist bias.

Think about the implications of this logic. You could just as easily say this:

Some people who scrutinize the scientific community are trying to bully people with their Creationist bias.

Peer-review also scrutinizes the scientific community.

Therefore, peer-review is bullying people with its Creationist bias.

Of course, peer-review is not a Creationist bully. But by your reasoning, they would be. That is a huge mental leap, a generalization allowing you to go from two arguably true premises to a totally false conclusion. Here's another example of the same reasoning.

Some people I knew before named Ben were total turd-eaters.

You are also named Ben.

Therefore, you are a total turd-eater.

See how that doesn't make sense? Now if I knew several guys named Ben, and every single Ben I ever met was a consummate poo-consumer, everyone might give me some grace if my first reaction was, upon seeing your name, to call you a total turd-eater. But it still wouldn't be right or logical, and I would still have to apologize upon finding out that you are not in fact totally an eater of turds.

This is a problem with internet arguments: people feel comfortable making ridiculous generalizations about each other.

The "creationist conspiracy" accusation isn't the only logical leap you made. I'll walk you through them in the weeks to follow. But herein lies my caveat: I am not that interested in having an ongoing debate with you about peer review, for the precise reasons I will continue to blog: interweb arguments stink. As a final word on peer review, it is virtuous to demand that science's "peers" actually "review" (scrutinize) and not just "approve" science's work. History teaches us that it's similarly virtuous to recommend that the everyday man take the same caution. As you will see, I put a lot of time into analyzing what you said, and my response is already mostly written. It's not personal, I'm just using it as blog fuel. But I have no time to keep growing a new debate on every point. That is, unless of course you want to hire me. I wouldn't mind the tedium of internet debating if it paid the bills. But it doesn't, so that's all till:

Next Time,
Episode 2: Antisocial

Music (Week of 2/23/09)

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:35:44 GMT


	She's meaner than Madonna and maybe cuter than Gwen, but can she be more important than either of them?

MusicWeek
Contents

1. Music Reviews

• Animal Collective's disc
• Heavy Rotation
• Lily Allen: Sophomore Slump or Success?
• Quick Reviews

2. Introducing: Gabe's Tapes
For the love of cassettes, a blog.

3. Guest Special: Dave's Blog
Dave: "The Top 10 Albums I Own That Violate My African-American Maleness"

MusicReviews
Animal Collective for your Collection,
Lily Allen's Second LP,
and some quick looks.

AlbumReview:
Animal Collective


	Merriweather Post Pavilion \| 88% Merriweather Post Pavilion

Merriweather Post Pavilion
by Animal Collective
The problem with writing about good music and generally ignoring bad music? Well, after you've rated a whole bunch of albums 80% or above, and a lot of readers haven't heard any of them, you begin to bring your own credibility into question. So maybe it's just as well that elgaberino's blog had to wait a couple weeks to review Animal Collective's new album, Merriweather Post Pavilion; it gave the other critics time to rack up agreement. The fact stands firm: most music released today sounds like something we've all heard before. In fact, most artists seem to shoot for that. There are exceptions, sure. And one of the most recognizable to music aficionados these days is Animal Collective.

Why?

Simply, the guys in Animal Collective are artists, and are always trying something at once organic, digital, new and catchy. Perhaps the most memorable track on the album is their single, which opens with a galaxy of undulating synthesizer blips that sets and resets a staggering rhythm to which the Collective starts singing. The melody is almost shouted but still melodic, and definitely catchy enough to be remixed for the dance floor or enjoyed in a large concert setting. The lyrics are just odd enough to keep listeners interested, and the repetitive noises, true to Collective form, anesthetize the brain as it acclimates, allowing the melodies, rhythms and harmonies to come through the mess as clearly as though it weren't there.

Not unlike the brain-teasing cover of this album, that's the magic of Animal Collective. People like to listen to this while high, but this reviewer can tell you first-hand that you don't need to be on drugs. Starting start into their music, if you don't know what to expect, you might think you've inadvertently stumbled onto a boring sound installation by a bunch of abstract artists. But that really isn't the end result at all. More than other psychedelia revivalists and indie rock experimentalists, Animal Collective has a unique ability to combine unusual sounds into the fabric of an enjoyable song, its rhythm or harmonics. Their Strawberry Jam made #4 on elgaberino's albums of the year list for 2007. That album had a mesmerizing quality to it, such that repeated listens made it feel as though it must be a one-time thing, stumbling into a backhanded brilliance not likely to be repeated. But some critics clearly feel this album is better than the 2007 offering, and we may not be able to help but agree, as this one repeats and repeats in our collective headphones.

AlbumReview:
Lily Allen


	It's Not Me, It's You \| 67% \|

It's Not Me, It's You
by Lily Allen
MySpace has had it's run. It will continue to be a major player on the internet, but it's not the universal connecting factor it was before it became really expensive for musicians and really annoying for anyone over the age of 15. The rise of Facebook and MMORPG's have changed internet identity beyond where it stood when MySpace reigned supreme. And yet, some bands have managed to use it as the new launching pad that proves not every band has to get on an indie or mainstream label in order to be a star.

2005, enter Lily Allen. She was musically talented enough to develop a large following via MySpace, especially considering the grassroots popularity radio culture in the UK. And Allen was smart, smarmy and good looking enough to keep all the attention she was garnering. And why not? Her lyrics were direct and clever, her songs were well-written and well performed, her sound and style were fresh, and she was upbeat right in the face of her searing, breakup-themed songs. She seemed a little bit unstoppable, and her sung advice to her brother to stop substance-abusing lay in stark contrast to the growing cult popularity of American ragamuffin (and now arch-rival) Amy Winehouse. She became an indie darling and an internet craze on both sides of the Atlantic. The first day this author went into Rasputin Records to find her debut album, it was playing over the house speakers, but it was sold off the shelves.

Allen's ska-influenced beat-driven pop remains smart alecky in her new release, but lacks the catchiness. The songs still have that same directness that felt so refreshing in her debut. But Lily's life is clearly not as informed by optimistic spunk as it was four years ago, and that's showing. Her single "The Fear" discusses the pressure of fame and materialism in stark contrast to the huge neediness of the world, and she sounds troubled in several of her songs. Not till the end of the album does she exhibit much of the relationship-oriented songwriting for which she posesses that specially sincere "mean-slash-cute" knack that we haven't seen since Gwen Stefani's No Doubt glory days in the mid-90's. While this is definitely an album by a strong woman and a strong musician, this is not her high point. The good news is, it might be her low point. There is good reason to believe that Lily Allen is capable of much more than this, and we can hope she has many more good albums in her, among which this would hopefully be the mere lesser, unimpressive middle album.

HeavyRotation
Here's what I'm enjoying this week.


	Davy by Coconut Records Recent release by Jason Schwartzman's band. For fans of indie pop along the lines of the Elected.		Blossom Dearie by Blossom Dearie Standards by light-voiced jazz vocalist who passed away February 7, 2009. Cute and spunky, not "easy listening:"		Toulouse Street The Doobie Brothers 1972 album that brought us "Listen to the Music" and "Jesus is Just Alright" is a strong disc. Current favorite song: "Mamaloi."		Soft Airplane by Chad Vangaalen The Calgary home-recorder and eerie singer's latest LP, as of this writing. Melodic, beat-driven and odd.

QuickListen
A glance at a few more worthy mentions.


	Dark Was the Night 75% \|

Dark Was the Night
Various Artists
What: Indie rock super-collaboration for a cure
Sounds Like: Mish-mash of alt-country, psychedelia, blues, indie pop and post-punk

When a collection of the best and most celebrated indie rock acts of our time link arms for a cause, we all prick up our ears in anticipation. HIV/AIDS is the cause, and the album is this sprawling two-disc set. The lineup truly is impressive, boasting the likes of Arcade Fire, Feist, Bon Iver, Cat Power, The National, Spoon, Iron & Wine, Sufjan Stevens and even elgaberino favorites Yeasayer and Grizzly Bear. Any project that has both The Decemberists and Beirut has to be at least a consideration. The main drawback is that true to compilation benefit albums, most of the acts are not at their best. But really the sloppy second-rate work of heavy hitters like Feist and Justin Vernon is still better than anything you'll be finding on the radio dial.


	Keep It Hid 83% \|

Keep It Hid
by Dan Auerbach
What: Black Keys vocalist/guitarist's solo debut
Sounds Like: rough-hewn blues rock, acoustic folk songs, and early 70's classic rock

The Black Keys are, to some, the sole defenders of good old grungy blues rock. They always are playing the blues, and they don't futz around with jams or honkey tonk or big band. There's just Dan Auerbach's mournful growl, his deeply fuzzed electric guitar riffs, and Patrick Carney, slapping the skins with the haphazard snap of a faltering heart. Enter producer Danger Mouse last year, and you get 2008's Attack & Release, which suggested that there was more to Auerbach than a Hendrix impression. Now Dan hits us with his solo album, presumably solo because it doesn't fit the scope of The Black Keys identity. It plays like a charmed folk rock album, one track sincere and acoustic, another hard and riffing, and so on. This is revelatory: not only is Dan Auerbach multidimensional, he's reliably good.

Introduction
A blog.

There aren't a lot of places on the internet dedicated to writing about cassette tapes. The sheer analog-versus-digital implications are staggering. Introducing GabesTapes.

GuestBlog
VaneDave’s “The Top 10 Albums
I Own That Violate My African-
American Maleness”
feat. elgaberino

(note the distinctive
vanedave layout style)

“Alright it's time to get on with life. Today I am posting the first of the reader's choice blogs. The top vote getter. We are going to explore some of the albums I own that get me cracked on the most when my boys go through my stuff. Oh they're bad. Trust me.

To help me in this endeavor I have enlisted the help of some friends. Aside from some of my boys who have repeatedly talked crap about me for these albums, I have asked elgaberino, one of xanga's foremost music experts, to help me write this blog. If you guys don't know about gabe's music skills (or for that matter his writing skills), you better get over to his page and start learning.

Now let's get started shall we?

10)Radiohead - The Bends
Question: What do millions of poser emo-kids and I have in common?
A: We love Radiohead!
Radiohead is an awesome band. Even some black people know this. I have a friend of who sampled "Exit Music for a Film" on a rap song. That being said, The Bends is just too pale for me not to recognize here. Also it makes the list as a representation of the eight, count em' eight, Radiohead albums I own.
Ask a Black Dude: ( Phil says): "Yo, why the hell do you own so many Radiohead albums? Are you depressed?"

9) Every Album Norah Jones Has Ever Released
Norah is actually pretty cool by most measures. She has done songs with Talib Kweli, Outkast, and Q-Tip, just to name a few. However I must lose some man points for owning every one of her albums, and wanting to name my daughter (when I have one) after her.
Ask a Black Dude (Patrick Says): "Dave you's a real bitch sometimes."

8) Blues Traveller - Four
Well as you can tell by the name of the band, it's blues so it's not so bad. And anyone who has ever heard them can't deny they've got some soul. Still these guysare pretty damn white.

Gabe's Take: There's nothing so particularly paleface as a 90's alternative rock band masquerading around as a blues act. Among their work, no album is better known, or more widely available on cassette in thrift stores, than Four. But they're usually more appreciated by the "acoustic-guitars and coffee shops" crowd, not the "big beats and apple-bottom jeans" crowd.

7) Diana Krall - Love Scenes
Diana is actually not that bad. She is a Jazz singer with a smooth sultry voice. Then again let's examine this further..

Gabe 's Take: She's got that air of a blond New York career girl who grew up and stumbled into fame as a recording lite jazz vocals. She's also from the northern wooded lands to which white people always threaten to escape: Canada. She's famously married to pale snob musician Elvis Costello, who has never been able to decide whether he wants to look like an urbane hipster or a mob movie snitch. Either way, there's nothing very "hood" about either of these characters, and nothing more decidedly "white suburban mom" than an elevator music vocalist's collection of love ballads.

6) Daughtry - Daughtry
If there is any, and I mean any American Idol album it is accebtable for a "brotha" to own, this is certainly not it. Ruben Studdard is the only semi-acceptable one.
Ask a Black Dude (Winston says): "You actually own this album?!!! Man, you almost as white as Randy Jackson right about now."

5) Katie Melua - Call Off the Search
Wow. Now we're getting down to the real embarassing stuff. I'll let Gabe take this one.

Gabe's Take: Katie Melua is a Georgia born singer. Why does that matter? Because she was born in the Georgia of khatchapuri and lobio, not the Georgia of black eyed peas and collard greens. An eastern European who grew up in Ireland, who makes a living being a girly bohemian singer in Europe, who doesn't even know much fame in the states, might even cause Carlton Banks to bring your "blackness" into question. Even if that weren't the case, consider your man-card suspended for listening to an artist whose main audience in America came from appearances in the Miss Potter (the Beatrix Potter biopic) and Nancy Drew soundtracks.

4)The Notorious B.I.G. - Ready to Die
Now you may be confused right now, so let me explain. Of course this album is one of the greatest albums in Hip Hop history, so it's "blackness" goes without saying. The problem is that I own the clean version of the album. This is a MAJOR VIOLATION! I bought the clean version by accident, and never bothered to get the Explicit one. This pisses my boys off to no extent.
Ask a Black Dude (My boy Jamel) - "Wait a minute something's wrong. We have been listening to this album for ten minutes and I haven't heard him say bitch once! What the fuck? This is the clean version. That's a bitch move Dave. A real bitch move."

3) Edie Brickell & The New Bohemians - Shooting Rubberbands at the Stars
This one would be on top, but it is a sentimental fave of mine. Still it's off the charts as far as how embarassing it is. No black person I know has ever heard of these people.

Gabe's Take: Edie Brickell is a Texas white chick who helped start the rash of patchouli-smelling power-woman singer/songwriters that plagued the whole decade of the 90's and still propels the limp careers of Alanis and Jewel. How did she help to initiate this? By releasing this debut album, which is hardly gangsta. The only thing she's shooting are the stars. With rubber bands. In short, this is the kind of stuff middle aged white hippie women eat up.

2)Sisqo - Enter the Dragon
The hit single from this album is the Thong Song. Nuff' said.'
Ask a Black Dude (MyxlDove says): If I never hear The Thong Song again, it'll be too soon. As a black man, back in the day he was bad for business... guilt by association. Non-black women asking if I like thongs and such.

1)Sheryl Crow - Tuesday Night Music Club
What? Why are you looking at me that way. I liked this album okay? Deal with it!

Gabe' Take: Dave, do you know why you've been pulled you over sir? No, not because you're black. Not even because you're a black dude listening to countrified girl pop by the ex-girlfriend of a Tour de France champion. No. Today your man-card is officially revoked indefinitely, not for the Edie or Katie albums, but for owning and listening to a Sheryl Crow disc on purpose. There is simply no explanation, no excuse that can get you out of this one, sir. If all you wanna do is have some fun, and soak up the sun, I got a feeling you're the only one. At least, the only self-respecting black male one.

Honorable/Dishonorable Mention
Basia - Time and Tide
Coldplay - Parachutes/ A Rush of Blood to the Head
John Mayer - Heavier Things
Alanis Morisette - MTV Unplugged

”

Music Monday 2/16/09

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:25:36 GMT


	Just hype: Neko Case, the artist behind Fox Confessor Brings the Flood, elgaberino's choice for 2006 Album of the Year, has a new album up her sleeve.

MusicMonday
Contents

1. Music Reviews

• M. Ward Album Review & Stream
• On The Horizon: Preorders

2. Music Quiz No.2 Answers

MusicReviews
Neko and Decemberists on the horizon
& M. Ward's new spinner.

Album Review:


	M. Ward \| 90% Download album as previewed in a session by NPR.

Hold Time
by M. Ward
When you're everyone's collaborator, the magic touch that makes all their albums work, because you're working on them, your name might be Kanye. Or it might just be M.

M. Ward, that is.

The nice thing about being that sort of a fellow is that you can call in those favors, and so that's why you'll hear She & Him collaborator Zooey Deschanel doing backup duties early in the album. That's why it's also not surprising to see Americana goddess Lucinda Williams and 90's indie rock god Jason Lytle (of Grandaddy fame) showing up to pay their respects. But unlike those who might call for Kanye's help, M. Ward needs no help from anyone. You get the feeling that it just makes his life a little more fun.

Matt Ward, who just goes by "M." onstage, is a true modern-day midas in indie rock/Americana circles. Whether working with Rilo Kiley members, or most recently Vancouver indie queen Neko Case (read below), Ward tends to lend a hand to turning recordings into gold with his production sensibilities and waxy, reverb-laden guitar work. All his previous solo albums were contemplative works that wandered in many directions, but his 2006 album, Post-War, took his own solo album career to a new level. Seeking to give something to a war-touched, politically torn country, he found a retro charm that brought his melodies and harmonic instincts to the surface. This tone is preserved nicely and expanded upon in tomorrow's new release, Hold Time. Spiritual themes abound and warm strumming are accompanied by cool, breezy electric solos that slide around the ear like the ghost of Dick Dale slopping one too many glasses of Chianti. Whether the quiet piano of "Oh Lonesome Me," his mournful duet with Williams, or the lazy chug-a-lug train of "Fisher of Men," Ward's work on this disc is nearly flawless, down to the last note. The outro has to be the most beautiful piece of instrumental work, along the lines of Calexico or El Ten Eleven, that indie fans have been offered in a long time. This is definitely a great piece of sunny chill-out music just ready to accompany the shining rains and warming flower buds of your 2009 spring. If you're looking for something timeless, snap up Hold Time tomorrow.

On the Horizon: Preorders
Two gems I found are now 9.99 each on preorder. If you can't find a leak, that is.


	The Hazards of Love \| 3/24/2009

The Hazards of Love
by The Decemberists

"The Hazards Of Love tells the tale of a woman named Margaret who is ravaged by a shape-shifting animal; her lover, William; a forest queen; and a cold-blooded, lascivious rake, who recounts with spine-tingling ease how he came "to be living so easy and free." Lavender Diamond's Becky Stark and My Brightest Diamond's Shara Worden deliver the lead vocals for the female characters, while My Morning Jacket's Jim James, Robyn Hitchcock and the Spinanes' Rebecca Gates appear in supporting roles. The range of sounds reflects the characters' arcs, from the accordion's singsong lilt in "Isn't it a Lovely Night?" to the heavy metal thunder of "The Queen's Rebuke/The Crossing."' - Amazon.com Editorial Review


	Middle Cyclone \| 3/3/2009

Middle Cyclone
by Neko Case

"The fifteen-track Middle Cyclone is Neko Case's first release since 2006's Fox Confessor Brings The Flood, the best-reviewed and best-selling album of her career. Middle Cyclone was produced by Case with Darryl Neudorf and recorded in Tucson, Brooklyn, Toronto, and Vermont. It features Case backed by her core band - guitarist Paul Rigby, bassist Tom V. Ray, backing vocalist Kelly Hogan, multi-instrumentalist Jon Rauhouse, and drummer Barry Mirochnick - along with numerous guests including M. Ward, Garth Hudson, Sarah Harmer, and members of The New Pornographers, Los Lobos, Calexico, The Sadies, Visqueen, The Lilys, and Giant Sand, among others." - Amazon.com Editorial Review

MusicQuizNo.2
The Answers.

1. Name each artist, or at least their band (if applicable).


a. Possibly the Red Hot Chili Peppers' most visible member, this is bassist and part-time actor Michael Peter Balzary, AKA Flea	b. A very young picture of Nirvana founder, songwriter, guitarist and frontman and late husband of Courtney Love, Kurt Cobain	c. First famous for his Grey Album, an illegal mashup of the Beatles' White Album with Jay Z's Black Album, Brian Joseph Burton performs under the stage name DJ Danger Mouse as a member of Gnarls Barkley.

d. Stephanie Lynn Nicks, AKA "Stevie" Nicks, gained household name status as a Lindsay Buckingham collaborator, Fleetwood Mac member, and solo recording artist.	e. Cheryl (James) Wray and Sandra Denton originally performed with DJ Spinderella in the recently reunited hip-hop act Salt-n-Pepa.	f. Notorious Rolling Stones guitarist (and recent Hollywood actor) Keith Richards

g. Pete Townshend is the visionary songwriter and guitarist of the immensely influential British rock band The Who.	h. Marcel Theo Hall made waves during the controversial era of unlicensed sampling in hip hop, and is known for his beat-boxing as the rapper (and MIB alien) Biz Markie.	i. Aerosmith lead singer and Liv Tyler's daddy, Stephen Tyler.

2. These were cropped from album covers.
Can you name the albums?


a. Tragic Kingdom No Doubt 1995 Why You Know It: Hit singles "Don't Speak," "Just A Girl," and "Spiderwebs"	b. McCartney Paul McCartney 1970 Why You Know It: Hit single "Maybe I'm Amazed" which he wrote for his wife.	c. Let It Bleed The Rolling Stones 1969 Why You Know It: Timeless rock hit "You Can't Always Get What You Want"

d. Writer's Block Peter, Bjorn & John 2006 (2007, USA) Why You Know It: Super-hyped indie album in 2007, hit single "Young Folks"	e. The Loon Tapes 'n Tapes 2006 Why You Know It: Super-hyped indie album in 2006, popular single "Cowbell"	f. Fleet Foxes Fleet Foxes 2008 Why You Know It: Super-hyped indie album in 2008

g. Aenima Tool 1996 Why You Know It: Grammy for Best Metal Performance, 1998	h. More Fish Ghostface Killah 2006 Why You Know It: Guest appearances by Kanye, Amy Winehouse and Ne-Yo	i. Blue Train John Coltrane 1957 Why You Know It: Hugely popular; vinyl cover is often sold as yuppie decor

3. Review Question: which famous Nashville-scene daughter became the step-child of Johnny Cash (and went on to record a cover of his song "Ring of Fire")?
Carlene Carter. It's funny that you still didn't know this. Really,nobody read the answers to the last quiz (from two weeks ago)? Learn, people.

4. Who first introduced the Beatles to drugs (marijuana)?
Bob Dylan.

5. Which late-60's lead singer, in declining health, was famously cited for indecent exposure after frontally flashing a Miami concert audience while attempting to incite them to riot?
Jim Morrison of The Doors.

6. Scarlett Johansson has sung with what band?
The Jesus and Mary Chain

7. Ghostface Killah is a solo artist. He is also a member of what notorious rap group?
The Wu Tang Clan

8. Review Question: which Vancouver indie rock collaborator is responsible for records released under the name Destroyer?
Dan Bejar. Again. You were given the answer last time. Check out his music. It's good. He's very talented. Kinda snobby, but very talented.

9. Which one of the following musicians was not a jazz trumpeter?

Nat Adderley
Dizzy Gillespie
John Coltrane - Played the sax. This question should have been easy. Go buy a Coltrane album right now.
Miles Davis

10. Name the songs from which these lyrics were taken:
a. "...hair reminds me of a warm safe place..."

"Sweet Child o' Mine"
by Guns N' Roses, from Appetite for Destruction, 1987
Why You Know It:
It's a huge radio hit that topped the Billboard charts in 1988 and still gets major airtime (probably all around the world). Guaranteed, if you haven't hummed along with this song, you've at least heard it.

b. "...he is calling me dude..."

"Comfort Eagle"
by Cake, title track of Comfort Eagle, 2001
Why You Know It:
It's a Cake-fanbase favorite from the album that brought you "Short Skirt, Long Jacket," and was in the soundtrack of Jack Black vehicle Shallow Hal.

c. "...nor do the wind, the sun or the rain..."

"(Don't Fear) The Reaper"
by Blue Öyster Cult, from Agents of Fortune, 1976
Why You Know It:
It's Blue Öyster Cult's #1 American hit, which reached #12 on the charts in 1976 and remains a classic rock radio favorite.

d. "...left my home in Georgia..."

"(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay"
by Otis Redding, single (posthumous), 1968
Why You Know It:
This song was one Redding wrote and recorded, with help from Steve Cropper, just before the plane crash that took his life. It topped the pop charts in 1968 and became a timeless international favorite. It was also the first posthumous pop single ever released, and is the prolific singer's most successful and famous song.

e. "...an entertainer or the author of the last chapter..."

"Hostile Gospel, Pt.1 (Deliver Us)'
by Talib Kweli, from Eardrum, 2007

Why You Know It:
Maybe you don't. But it was the third song on Kweli's 2007 album, which debuted at #2 on the Billboard 200, and is arguably one of the catchier tracks on the offering. It should be recognizeable to fans of alternative east coast hip-hop.

My Search for the Wisdom of Ballpoint

Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:57:57 GMT

My Search^{for the}Wisdom of Ballpoint
A "Websites for the Weekend" Special Edition


	This has nothing to do with ballpoint pens. But it's still... kinda engrossing.

Stupid Pen!
I have a problem. Since I have been trying to better keep track of my life - on paper - the importance of pens has grown. I need to be able to write small and fast, without worrying about whether the ink in my pen is going to gush, or get goopy, or blotch, or even flow at all.

First I Asked Around
I thought, "What if someone out there has a site about pens? Someone out there must be obsessed with finding the best cheap pens in the world. When I find the fruit of their labor, I will eat of it, and save myself all this painful writing utensil failure!" I know a couple people who know a lot of useful links on the internet. One is my professor, Bill Nagel. He's pretty good about paper and ink, because he's an old-school graphic designer, so I thought I'd ask him. No luck, but he did tell me about a similar type of site on a different topic, and I became thoroughly distracted. Utilizing Ian W. Fieggen's site, you can learn new and ridiculously nerdy ways to lace your shoes, ways that will remind you of the mid-to-late 1990's like nothing else. Readers will find pros and cons on different lacings and knots, find reviews on different types of laces, learn shoelace terminology, and understand the finer math of choosing your shoelace lenght. (I'll let you explore how that works on your own, but hint that it has to do with the distance between the holes.) You can even learn tips for teaching your children how to tie their shoes, and explore advice for elderly or disabled shoelace users. There's something endearing about the nerdy, methodical construction of the site too, and his grammar, along with the way things are "spelt," is somewhat quaint. So next time you're wondering what shoelaces to buy, check out Ian's Shoelace Site. [link]

Site: Ian's Shoelace Site
URL: http://www.shoe-lacing.com/shoelace/index.htm


With a little effort on my part, Moleskinerie led me to Mike Shea, consummate pen nerd.

Then I Searched "Pen Reviews" and
Saw the Name "Moleskine"
Moleskine is a recognizeable name to me, for reasons you'll understand if you've actually been reading my blog. [link] So when the first search results came up, naturally I clicked on the "moleskinerie" link to a "Pen Review" about the Uniball 207. [link] I thought, perhaps Moleskine has a collection of pen reviews! That would be sweet. But I found no such thing. Upon clicking on author Michael Shea's own link, I was horrified by this narcissistic thing he has called a lifefeed, which told me his opinion about D&D, among other things. Not useful. But by googling Moleskinerie and "pen review," [link] I was able to come up with reviews of a couple more pens. I also found Mike Shea's actual list of pen reviews, which I think is a good deal more useful for pen shopping than his lifefeed would be. Beyond just telling me whether or not the pens rock, I found that he was a very useful source of pen information. For example, I learned a little about what determines pen and writing longevity: "The above pens represent only a tiny fraction of the excellent pens available in most grocery, drug, or office supply stores," quoth the goodly nerd. "When looking for a pen that will last the ages," (Editor's Note: here I was expecting him to tell me which spell to cast, but he didn't,) "look for a gel-based rollerball pen that states that it is waterproof, fade proof, and acid-free. Water, light, and ink acidity are the three elements most damaging to writing over time. Seek out pens that avoid all three." Well thanks, Mike. And thanks for using that Oxford comma. The grammarians salute you. Satisfied that I might actually buy some of the pens he reviewed, and that he might actually know what he was talking about, I set out to find a more comprehensive site that might be a little more systematic and user-friendly. [link]

Site: Mike's Rollerball and Fountain Pen Review
URL: http://mikeshea.net/Mikes_Rollerball_and_Foun.html


	Pen Addict: This guy writes with the pen, so you don't have to, or so you can, or something.

I Found the Three Best:
One on a Quest, One Addict, and the Best Site
So I finally found three great sites for reading about pens, and learning which ones are awesome.

The first one I'll share is the least. While Pen Quest is useful and interesting, in the end it's just a blog about pens, so it's not that interactive from a resource point of view. It's less of a reference and more of a column. It has pen news, which pens Steward and Colbert use on the show, etc. Kinda nerdy, marginally useful and hosted on WordPress. So, yeah, not the best of the options, but definitely worth a look. [link]

My favorite site is PenAddict. This guy is just addicted to pens, and he reviews them by writing the body of the review with the pen and posting it on his site. You can tell exactly what the ink flow looks like just from looking at the pic, and it has the pen sitting there right next to his highly legible writing, so you can remember what the pen looks like (because you know you're not going to remember the name, and you can't write it down if you don't have a pen. Duh.) [link]

Probably the best site I found was Pen Review. The boring name perfectly describes what you'll find there. The logo is a clipart quill and ink pot with a blackletter font, italicized, colored and stroked in a very ugly manner, meant to scare away all but the most desperate and serious characters. "Expert Reviews of Writing Instruments" graces the subtitle. While I am inclined to hate this site immediately, I like how organized it is. You can search for the pen about which you are curious, or you can browse a long list of brand names. You can also create a login and password and log your own pen ratings (1-10 scale) based on four scoring categories: writability, handling, looks/design, and overall score. [link]

I think due to lack of demand for these sites, they only have reviewed so many pens. The pen market seems so saturated with different kinds of pens by familiar brands like Pentel, Bic, UniBall, and Pilot that it seems futile anyway. I could not find ratings on any of these sites for my blue Pilot Precise V7 (Fine), and that would have been useful before buying a box of them thinking they were something else. I did find ratings for the older V5. But it's worth noting that next time I will definitely be going to one or more of these sites before buying pens.

Site: Pen Quest
URL: http://penquest.wordpress.com/

Site: Pen Addict
URL: http://www.penaddict.com/

Site: Pen Review
URL: http://www.penreview.com


	The British Amazon thingee is smirking for a reason.

As Usual, I Found
Something Hilarious in the Process
So in looking for pen reviews, I looked at a lot of links. I wanted to see what was going on all over the interweb, wherever it concerns pens. Some of the sites were about expensive heirloom buried treasure pens that you could never afford even if you did sell all your organs to the black market and mortgaged your grandma's house. Some of the sites were just stupid sites that charaded as pen information sites but really just wanted you to add one to your cart and hurry up and buy one already. But we find the goodwill of the humorous proletariat in the most interesting places sometimes, and apparently the best place to get a good laugh about the most common of ballpoints is the British. And where do they post their humor? On Amazon.com. Where else? It makes sense. Amazon wants you to review your product. Can't you just see those cheeky British blokes the first time Amazon asked them to do that after they bought a box of cheap pens? Sure, we'll review 'em. The results are nothing short of humorously satisfying. (Editor's Note: in most parts of the world, the word "biro" is slang for the universally used "Bic Crystal Ballpoint," originally invented by Ladislas Biro.) Go get your endorphins. [link]

Site: Amazon.Co.Uk (Bic Crystal Ballpoint Pen, Product Reviews)
URL: http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/product/B000JTOYLS/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Music Monday 2/9/09

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:41:41 GMT


	You didn't recognize this guy (Andrew Bird) last week. Make it up to him by streaming his new album below.

MusicMonday
Contents
1. Music Reviews

• Andrew Bird Album Review & Stream
• Bon Iver EP Review

2. Music Quiz No.2

• Name that artist
• Name that album
• Musician trivia
• Song trivia

MusicReviews
Andrew Bird's new disc & Bon Iver's EP

Album Review:


	Noble Beast \| 82% Noble Beast

Noble Beast
by Andrew Bird
When for once a music nerd feels that he can write something that might have some bearing on his audience, he rejoices to spurn them, because the popular music is often just the thing he despises. Maybe this is because of the numerous sacrifices artists make in order to obtain the all-elusive fame and success that comes with popularity. The mainstream tends to smooth an artist's rugged edges; personality quirks are quieted, endearing individuality is muted. No wonder critics don't like it.

So, it's with proportional joy that our funny little critic runs to his readers having something about which they will agree with him. He is not a child who has found a new puppy and wants to keep it. No, he has instead found the beloved and long-lost family dog, and he knows everyone back at home will greatly appreciate what he has to report. It's always nice to give a good report. And so, I give you Andrew Bird's January 20th, 2009 release. His 2007 release hit the spot with the indie community, mixing the shellac of Coldplay with the quirk of every weird influence Bird has ever absorbed over the course of his storied career. Arguably, the career of a indie rock violinist - who specializes in whistling - has got to be storied.

And so the story continues. He will woo you in the lilting concentration of the closing tracks and musical interludes, and the understated genius of each change of pace, like the epic salsa rhythm (if that's possible) and mixed major and minor key swells of "Masterswarm." The Elliot Smith chord progressions, orchestral plucking and timeless barnyard fiddle of "Effigy" and the oddly Radiohead-esqueness of "Not a Robot, but a Ghost," aren't even the central selling points; that charge might go to the rock 'n roll thud of "Fitz and the Dizzyspells." The main downsides of the album will come in listeners' attention span. This is not a disc for when you're in that "Back in Black" or "Stairway to Heaven" mood. It's better suited to the days when you have a headache that begs for something calm and collected but not boring. There's also the fact that Bird mostly continues the new tradition apparent, which he began in 2007 with Armchair Apocrypha. Perhaps that album signaled us about the change, a sort of new beginning, when it reiterated better produced versions of songs already on previous albums. Gone are the rough and poorly balanced tracks of yester-year, and no one would ever guess he used to play in a raucous alt-swing band. Here is the extremely smooth draught of a renewed musical force, maybe in the tradition of Cat Stevens and Paul Simon. Hopefully he will keep writing songs for us for a long, promising time.

b  o  n
i  v  e  r
e  .  p  .


	Blood Bank \| 90%

Coldplay gets a bad rap these days. Some find them boring, others think they're a ripoff of other styles (although, I really don't know which, per se. Their sound is as recognizeable as that posterization of Obama's face.) I think some people try to find something they don't like about Coldplay, because they're so successful. And everyone's going to have haters. But oddly, music nerds don't seem to agree. Most of the cool kids sort of sigh and confess they still like Coldplay. Why all this talk about coldplay? Because I want to set them up as a compliment, not an insult. Their strong side is phenomenal. So, even better than that, just imagine if Coldplay were to become a lot more like TV On the Radio. What if they kept a lot of their good points, but were a bit less boring, and used quirky analogies for romantic things? What if they sounded just a little more haunted (or haunting) and a lot more harmonic? If they had a little more respect for soul and the avant garde than for the concert stadium, but still kept their smooth melodies and soaring instrumental arrangements? What if Tunde Adepimpe were to take over Coldplay? Well I have an answer for you. It would sound pretty good, but maybe not as good as Bon Iver's latest EP. Some people describe their sound as folky, pastoral or soulful indie. They describe themselves as "new soul." If you know Bon Iver, chances are you're already drooling at my mention of their name. If you don't, you really should go get For Emma, Forever Ago and spin it through your speakers about 100 times. Then buy this EP. Every time I hear these four songs, I feel the need to stop and close my eyes, just to soak my brain in the slightly raspy, harmonic beauty of these four songs. Do I need to write more, or should I stop there? Maybe I should mention that this may be the only EP to which I've ever listened more than once. I'm spinning this over and over and over.

MusicQuizNo.2
Heard. This one should be easier.
Message me your answers.
I will post grades.
The quizzes continue.

1. Name each artist, or at least their band (if applicable).


a	b	c

d	e	f

g	h	i

2. These were cropped from album covers.
Can you name the albums?


a	b	c

d	e	f

g	h	i

3. Review Question: which famous Nashville-scene daughter became the step-child of Johnny Cash (and went on to record a cover of his song "Ring of Fire")?

4. Who first introduced the Beatles to drugs (marijuana)?

5. Which late-60's lead singer, in declining health, was famously cited for indecent exposure after frontally flashing a Miami concert audience while attempting to incite them to riot?

6. Scarlett Johansson has sung with what band?

7. Ghostface Killah is a solo artist. He is also a member of what notorious rap group?

8. Review Question: which Vancouver indie rock collaborator is responsible for records released under the name Destroyer?

9. Which one of the following musicians was not a jazz trumpeter?

Nat Adderley
Dizzy Gillespie
John Coltrane
Miles Davis

10. Name the songs from which these lyrics were taken:
     a. "...hair reminds me of a warm safe place..."
     b. "...he is calling me dude..."
     c. "...nor do the wind, the sun or the rain..."
     d. "...left my home in Georgia..."
     e. "...an entertainer or the author of the last chapter..."

Always Question "Science"

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:35:42 GMT

Always Question "Science"
"Why Peer-Review is Inherently Dependent
on Non-Relativist Morality," or
"Why Science is Only as
Reliable as Humans"

Have you ever wondered why in politics, liberals and conservatives each ignore scientific studies coming from the opposite side? Is this because they hold their beliefs, and always assume that anything to the contrary must be quack science? Do you assume that the people on the the political wing opposite you always promote junk ideas on purpose?

If so, you're making a common mistake. You're judging science by your political position. Don't worry, that makes you like almost everyone else. And if you're like everyone else, you'll say you're choosing your political position based on science.

So, that begs the question: do scientists do the same thing?

Appeal to Science
Have you ever heard someone say "science has proven [insert statement here]"? Have you overheard the expression, "studies show," used to supposedly prove something? This is a fallacy of logical argument. The speaker, instead of proving he or she is right, instead asks you to accept that someone else — an unnamed scientist — has already proven. The implication is that because science has already proven it, you don't need to see the proof. If you're like most people, you'll just take their word for it, because "science" sounds credible. The appeal to science is a subset of an "appeal to authority" fallacy, and anyone asking you to believe it may be asking you not to think logically.

They cite science to support something is true. Science is a commonly cited "authority" because people believe it. Why? We follow because we think "science" is "the business of proving things." But often (maybe more often than not) scientists have proven to be snake-oil salesmen. Why are we always shocked when this happens? Because post-modern, information-age minds don't closely examine things. Our brains are soft, conditioned to believe that scientific results are always true.

Disproved? Impossible. That Was My Favorite Theory!
So if you know the basics about science, or academics in general, you know that "peer review" is a system meant to keep scientists and scholars honest. Here's the gist: if I am a scientist and I publish some scientifically flawed results, or theories, other scientists will supposedly check my work and put me to shame. It's the rule of the nerds, and not a bad idea overall. It works to an extent on Wikipedia. But then, it's also the a reason why professors and debate judges won't accept Wikipedia as a credible source.

So again, peer review is a great idea, but as the only accountability in science, it isn't bullet-proof, and in fact it may be increasingly riddled with holes, as we speak.

Sometimes science concerns itself with observable fact, testing things over and over to determine what things are, or how they work. Scientists deal in absolutes and concrete, observable facts.

But just as often, science will proffer a broad theory about things we can't scientifically observe or know with any certainty, such as what happened in prehistory, or how old the earth is. Obviously, when these theories are authored, there is a possibility that they are correct. But they remain also quite possibly wrong, by virtue of the fact that they're just hypothetical, plausibly educated guesses. So what happens, when scientists favor a certain theory? When they hope that it's true? They get entrenched, and they risk bias.

Science is a ...Religion?
So why would a scientist ever do anything beyond measuring the "seeable" and concrete, the measurable or scientifically observable? If the past no longer exists in the present, and if human meaning is intangible, what use is science in measuring it? Science can measure the chemical makeup of a string-bean, or how the bean-stalk grew, but it can't ever tell you what it means philosophically or spiritually. Unlike Mary Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein, science can't even tell you where the bean-stalk's life came from.

The truth is this: there is nothing really sterile and objectively removed. Science claims to be just that, but it can't be, because humans can't be. Renaissance science wanted to investigate particulars and learn about the makeup of the world. But Modernist science wanted to take us beyond investigating how life works into discovering what life means. For some, that meant simply stripping life of superstitious meaning, by showing that men are merely animals, and that animals are just complicated machines. Once everything is a machine, everything is scientifically knowable. For others, science meant freedom from popular religious norms. Modernist scientists wanted to free the world of lies and superstitions. So they made a vigilant, if misguided search for a different truth.

Any search for meaning will change the scientist's motive. It begins as "scientific discovery" and changes to "quest to prove _____ belief." His or her goal then, rather than looking for and compiling factual truths, is instead to look for anything that would support the theory. More importantly, it becomes tempting to set aside anything that does not support it. This is what we will label an ideological bias or a religious bias, depending on whether what they hope to prove is politically or religiously motivated. The former is doubtless committed by scientists on the payroll of political groups both for and against proving global warming, the latter is probably tempting for those entrenched in the Creationism/Evolutionism debates. For instance, some evolutionists, most notably Richard Dawkins, seem much more interested in disproving God than proving evolution, which for him makes Evolutionism more of a religion and not really a science at all. For Dawkins, it might also be a personal bias, because his ego and image are wrapped up in relation of God's existence to scientific pursuits.

Scientists get so accustomed to some theories, however, that they build their whole life's work on the presumption (or even hope) that they're true. This compromises the scientist. In order to believe that their work matters, they find themselves in a position to need to believe that the foundational theory is true, even though it was never observed scientifically to be so. This we will call a career bias. This form of bias can also keep scientists quiet when they make scientific findings that are bad for their career, such as things that would disprove the boss' thesis, or things that would implicate the pharmaceutical company for which they work.

In the same way, when personal interest gets involved, peer-review transforms from an airtight Tupperware bowl into a sieve. When a particular theory becomes popular or lucrative, the unending quest for the truth ends. It's hard to believe, but at one point in the past, science thought the earth was flat, and was the center of the universe. Scientists had a lot of their ideas, and thus their very reputations and accomplishments, based on these ideas. So when certain bright minds began to question the error of these theories, great opposition arose from the scientists who were more invested than principled, or critical.

In this case, peer review would have concluded that the round-earth theory was scientifically wrong. But really it was right, and just unpopular among scientists.

So we see that peer review only works if the other scientists aren't ambitious for popularity or fame, and have nothing to lose by being proven right or wrong about their theories. Peer-review is proven effective in only one culture, a culture of scientific fervor and moral character. But it fails if that culture is changed. And that culture has changed. Any scientist should be able to tell you that a method tested under widely varying conditions can be reasonably expected to produce widely varying results, and the results of peer-review vary just as widely.

The Old Order
Peer-review came to its current, unquestioned prominence as the sole accountability for science amid a culture of verificationism, a culture that was obsessed with finding THE truth through science, regardless of the political establishment. Science was to kill off old ways of believing truth, by discovering truth through the scientific method, and repudiating truth that could not be discovered by this method as being unimportant or not true. While this was erroneous, the fervency with which many of these very moral and ethical men sought to replace old follies with new intelligence served society well. Scrutiny was applied to every conclusion.

A Pagan Priesthood
If science was the new salvador, it was unquestionable in its beneficence and promise. And its jawbone, its priesthood was the scientist. There was a belief among this "priesthood to the god Science" that a new epistemology and enlightenment would arise from Science. This hope fueled a lot of science's progress. A lot of people died of radiation, mercury and lead poisoning in the process, too. Hence the idea that individuals sometimes suffer for the greater good of science, or progress, was more and more widely accepted. Increasingly, science replaced morality in importance. Terrible things were done in the name of Science, and because people put their faith in Science, culprits like Hitler got away with murder significantly more than they should have. Surely this was not the fault of science. But it might have been the fault of Science worship. Remarkably, Hitler was able to find peer-review support for his politicially-driven science of eugenics, in no small part due to the popularity of Darwin's idea that people evolved from animals. It made sense that therefore some lower people can be exterminated like animals. But the scientific community is not what it was 100 years ago. It still acts as a priesthood; it defends the dogma that Science is the only way to truth, or knowledge, or even the salvation of the world and the rectification of mankind's wrongs.

Chasing Beliefs
But many scientists no longer believe in truth as such, nor in enlightenment. What is left is a corrupt priesthood scared to death that the theories for which they have won awards from their peers will be disproven by the next upstart who has no respect for the establishment. So the priesthood squelches the very inquisitiveness from which their youth acuired its vigor. Furthermore, scientists who question the dogma or deity of Science go against the predominating culture. Scientists now approach their work with their conclusions (beliefs) in place, and they resolve to stubbornly explain away any phenomena that do not fit within their agenda. True to Darwin, they start with a conclusion then look for things that support it, rather than observing the entire scope of phenomena and alternate explanations before settling on one conclusion.

Peer review has only been proven useful under the conditions that the overwhelming majority of peers (1) care about truth and questioning everything in the pursuit of truth, more than they care about losing their own theories, career progress or stability and (2) that the majority of scientists are ethical and not tautological, cyclical or self-congratulatory in their thinking. The presumption of peer-review is that the scientific community could never be controlled by bias, which is a silly presumption. It is reliable that people do follow incentives. When the incentive is to poo-poo unpopular theories, those theories will get poo-pooed, regardless of their validity or truth. Count on "peer-review" standing by, nodding its approval.

I think that with the perpetual erosion of ethical fiber in western culture, and the increasing difficulty of academic ascent, comes the need for a better system of verification than "Well, the rest of the club-members agree."

The most honestly scientific
approach to science: question it.

I Want to Die.

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:32:50 GMT

I Want to Die.
(Really?)

Today I was going to google a phrase, and I absentmindedly began typing "I want to." So, Google search's automatic suggestions popped up, the most popular searches starting with that phrase. I was surprised by the most popular "I want to" search:

Now, when I was younger I used to think about suicide a little. I never thought about doing it, not seriously, but it was in my brain. I'd seen it idealized in movies like Dead Poets Society, and in music. But some of the toughest baggage carried by some of the closest people in my life came from the times they witnessed a loved one attempting to kill themselves. So I am not really for it. Seems like it's usually done spitefully or foolishly, and I can't see how that's a good idea. But why is "I want to die" the most popular "I want to" on Google? Do so many people really want that, more than so many other things they might search? What the heck, people! Look at the other options: you could hold someone's hand, you could know what love is, or you could work for the Diddy show. (Ummm, or whatever.) So why DIE? Maybe this should be a wake-up call. There's got to be more to life than dying.

Have you ever wanted to die?
Is suicide wrong?
Is it wrong to think about suicide?
Why or why not?
Have you ever Googled "I want to die"?