markosis

Well, I'm not voting for either of the two main candidates, but this Sarah is a slick talker. I can see how some could be swayed by her very vague answers and her constant "Its all about the American people" rhetoric. She's got a way with catchphrases.

And away we go...

Gotta say, Sarah sounds pretty on. Oh wait, she just called herself a fucking maverick. God damnit, I was actually with her up to that point.

People are allowed to believe whatever they want. We don't have to agree or follow, but anyone can think anything they want to.

Don't forget that I also said religious/theological superiority is a disease. Therefore, no, I don't think anyone is justified in hurting others based on their beliefs. But they can believe anything they want to.

To suggest that all beliefs are somehow equal is simply false. Some beliefs, regardless of whether they are or are not based on personal experience, are simply wrong.

You know, I've said before that I respect your opinions.

However, that kind of thinking is what breeds the kind of religious fanatics you are so opposed to. I'm sure Hitler felt the same way, and I'll bet Bin Laden feels the same thing. I know Pat Robertson would totally agree with you on that sentiment. What makes your stance any better than theirs? The fact that you base your beliefs on science? Sorry, whether based on science, myth, or personal experience, religious (or anti-religious) superiority is a disease that plagues our world. What you said there only throws fuel on the fire.

As I said before, our beliefs are based on our experiences and perceptions, and those, as you said yourself, are subjective.

and not all beliefs are created equal.

Well, belief is something that lies within an individual. It doesn't need to be validated by an external source. Someone with a fear of spiders might believe that in any dark closet in their home there's a black widow waiting to bite them, which might be true, or it might just be something they truly believe through their own experience. And that's what we're talking about here: personal experience. Personal experience is what shapes a person's beliefs. We all have drastically different experiences so we will all have drastically different beliefs, and not a one is better or more valid than another.

van's been telling me for years not to bother with it, so why is he?

Probably because he's no longer relevant, and he wants to make some cash. He should also consider doing Moondance in its entirity. That would be pretty badass.

Noted

His debut up through Blood On The Tracks. There's enough just in that time frame to keep me occupied for a while.

Edit: I didn't know Desire came after Blood. That's an exception. Seriously, I'm no Dylan freak. I love his music, but there's so much more music in the world that I enjoy I could never devote that much time to one artist.

Who's Tucker Martine?

There's too much music in the world. I could spend 5 years wading through Dylan's catalogue. I'd rather stick with the Dylan essentials and keep exploring new sounds that excite me.

I really like Bill Maher, but for him to say "I don't use the word "atheist" about myself, because I think it mirrors the certitude I'm so opposed to in religion." is pretty ridiculous, when I've seen him bash his guests for even having a hint of spiritual ideas, and he does it with absolute certainty. So its obvious he exercises plenty of certitude in his own beliefs.

You people are fucking ridiculous.

Potato vs potahto. Who gives a shit? Its the same fucking thing!

God's mind?! What the fuck?

I don't really get why people get so hung up on the "creation of the universe". If that is an arguing point, them I'm out of this one. For people to get so bent out of shape about something that we cannot prove or disprove, nor has any bearing on our lives, baffles me. Its about as fickle as arguing about what happens after we die, something else that cannot be proven or disproven, nor has any bearing on our lives.

Aside from that, I see alot of folks using the word "god" as a concrete term, as if one could put a singular meaning on it. "God" is so ambiguous, I think its foolish to argue over the existance of "god." I'll say what I said in our last big religion debate, using George Harrison's quote from above: You may see clorophyll and photosynthesis, I may see an unexplainable beautiful thing, but its the SAME THING. Just because we look at it differently and call it different things, doesn't change the fact that its the exact same thing. The same goes for the science vs. religion debate: someone sees 1's and 0's and genetic compounds, another person sees unexplained phenomenon, another person sees something entirely different, but its the same thing. Get over it. I know we all get off by trying to catch he other guy in a lie or a moment of hypocrisy, but in this argument there are no winners, only each beautiful, individual opinion.

Thanks, Aman.

have you heard bob dylan when he worked with Sly & Robbie, or when he recorded with Slash on guitar and all the rest of that crap he did in the 1980s? he's only as good as the musicians he plays with, too - like most people. does he pay al kooper royalties for like a rolling stone? also, wouldn't those motown session players and the wrecking crew be billionaries by now if that notion stood for anything?

1. I haven't listened to any Dylan post-Blood On The Tracks. I have no desire to either.

2. Using that logic, it sounds like the other amazing, enigmatic, genius musicians in The Band were basically there to back up Robbie, and nothing more, and they had absolutely no affect on the songs, and that the songs would have been the same without them. Robbie is a very talented person, but I don't think he was back there directing Garth or telling Rick how to write his basslines. To think these guys basically lived together and no one ever had an arranging idea outside of a few songs? For the record, Robbie himself has said that the Across The Great Divide box set was less than historically accurate.

The Sea And Cake - bonus tracks from Everybody

>i assume everyone has heard what the band sounded like without robbie robertson? you'd have thought the others wouldn't have needed him seeing as they helped write all the songs, and that evil robbie went and took all the credit (except, it would appear, on about 2 or 3 songs of every album - very cunning of him, to give them credit on a couple so as not to arouse suspicion!)

 

Barney Hoskyns devotes quite a bit about this topic in Across the Great Divide. The impression you get about the first few albums is that while Robbie was writing songs, the others were partying and horsing around. The others didn't write many songs at all, so there weren't any to put on the records. It was not like George Harrison struggling to get one of his many songs on a Beatles record. Similarly, Harrison released the 2 LP All Things Must Pass after the Beatles, while Levon's albums were mostly comprised of cover songs. The others' contribution is primarily to the songs' sound and feel, which cannot be minimized. Their musicianship made Robbie's songs stronger and perhaps more "rootsy" than they otherwise may have been, as evidenced by his post-Band output, and his songs gave the others a vehicle for their expert musicianship.

1. Have you ever heard Robbie Robertson sing? Its a travesty. Without the wonderful voices around him those songs would have amounted to nothing.

2. I agree that Robbie may have been the initial spark that began the songwriting process, but the way the songs were arranged certainly was affected by the rest of the group. How could Robbie take sole songwriting credit for "Chest Fever"? I seriously doubt he dictated the entire process of writing that song. Its obvious, listening to the songs as they were recorded, that the existence of the other musicians made an impact on the songwriting.

I love Robbie Robertson. He's my favorite rock guitarist and damn near my favorite songwriter, but he's also a smug dick. I have no problem questioning his integrity.

a HUGE part of being a good leader is connecting to people and making people feel comfortable and good about themselves. Like it or not, she DOES do that.

When I look at Sarah Palin, it does make me feel better about myself. Suddenly being unemployed and living with my uncle for free doesn't seem so pathetic.

For the record, I'm voting for Ralph Nader. I listened to him speak for maybe 3 minutes after the debate last week, and in those 3 minutes he provoked my emotions in a way that McCain and Obama miserably failed to do in the preceding 90 minutes.

took me a while to "get" this one, but hot damn, I'm in love with this record now

Just discovered this:

and its in the running for my fav of the year.

Conclusion: TheMaker is Jay Bennett.

Jealous. I love Portland.

Out of curiousity, Ms, how do you manage to do all of this travelling/going to MMJ shows?

They have her in training all this week.

I picture something along the lines of Pavlov's dog.

If captain Jack invades the US the first place he will visit will be the shore annd Delaware is on the shore.

Massive lol's. Hey, I went to Canada on vacation when I was 9, I guess that means I have foreign policy experience.

I'm usually the first person here to preach understanding and tolerance between those we disagree with, but Palin is a menace. And its extremely sad that she is nothing more than a political ploy, and she is so comfortable with being a ploy.

just purchased/listened to:

Deerhunter - Fluorescent Grey EP

Horse Feathers - House With No Name

damn haunting stuff, super catchy

I missed the best of SNL's days, but through reruns I have discovered that 1991-1993 was the best run the show had. The cast was outstanding. Sandler, Myers, Carvey, Spade, Rock, Hartman, Farley, etc. How could you go wrong?