MattZ

A minor point, but if you check out the youtube video with Jeff and Jay playing this, Jeff throws in a D7 at some points so that it can be/should be played as: [D] Well I was born in the country so she thinks I'm easy to lose [D7] Well I was [G] born in the country she thinks I'm easy to lose [D] She wants to [A7] hitch me to a wagon and drive me like a [D] mule Its hard for me to show the timing right, but check out the video and you will see what I mean. I'd post the video myself, but i think that's frowned upon.

The scene in Quiz Show with the chocolate cake gets me choked up every time. Every single time.

Yep, the Something Else through Lola run blows me away. Some add Muswell Hillbillies to the end of that run (and Face to Face to the beginning), but not me. (Not that they aren't great in their own right, just that they aren't on the same level that I sometimes refer to as holy shit). I havent' seen him on this current tour. I saw him on the last tour with the choir and it was pretty painful. I didnt realize he played acoustic duo shows around here, but I would've gone if I did. You are in for a treat. Strip away all the bullshit, and if nothing else, these are just timeless songs.

Jeez. My Back Pages, too. Sheeeeit. My Back Pages would be worth a bazillion dollars to me. This means 25k is a steal, right?!

HungryHippo nailed it. This book is stunning. If you are a Cardinals fan, it's a must.

yeah its weird. most of my friends dont like him. they think he's self-indulgent or adult contemporary. Two qualities that I despise, and I think (as a general matter) my own personal radar for either of those things is pretty well tuned. I guess it's just fine line, and he doesn't cross the line for me. I can't explain it. I'd probably hate anyone else singing a song like Stop or I Taught Myself How To Grow Old or The Sun Also Sets.

I listened to heartbreaker the other night on vinyl, and sure, it's great, but now that I have some distance from his more recent stuff, I can better appreciate how great his stuff with the Cardinals is. I really love some of those songs. I dont spend much time ranking albums, but I think he's a better songwriter now than he was on Heartbreaker.

Someone put that video in the thread about things we wish would never end.

Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands

I saw that groovingdan (he used to hang around here) is selling his f-25 over at the acoustic guitar forum if you ever check it out. I am sort of surprised he hasn't posted it here since it's a Tweedy special. I almost bought his a couple of years ago, but he decided to keep it. Great little guitar. 2" nut!

Haha, you've got a good memory. Yeah, let's just say that I have been a master rationalizer this past year. I won't get into the specifics about it, but let's just say, I did some very foolish things from a $$ perspective, but I did some very smart things from a standpoint. I got the 00-21 from a store near me in NY. And, yeah, I am diving more into fingerpicking with the 00-21. It's weird, the D-18 is just such a well-rounded guitar, and I really love it. But there's something so perfect about sitting with a smaller guitar on the couch, and fingerpicking some old Dylan tunes. I fin

I just got an 00-21 (martin) so that I can channel my inner Dylan. It's got an adi top and rosewood back/sides. I never considered myself a rosewood guy, but this baby just sings. Of course, the problem with this is that I now want a small bodied mahogany guitar too. Jeff's got a pretty sweet 0-18, of course. Crap!! Anyway, just weighing in with some love for the 0s and 00s of the world.

hey, congrats PopTodd!

nah, SirS is right. This is a warmed over "dad rock" joke. The Onion is better than that.

my favorite songs never end.

Huh, that's certainly how I interpreted it myself, but I didn't know that I was right. Very cool. Always struck me as an emotionally bare hedged bet. With typical Lennon flair. Turns the whole song and the complexity of the issue upside down with one throwaway word. As I said, it slays me.

Yeah, I'm with you Winston. Never realized thats what they were saying on Oba-Di. As for Revolution though, I knew he was saying "in" and frankly I think that's what makes the song for me. When John says "out (in)" I just about lose it every time.

Let's leave Sullivan's hyperbole ("democracy has failed") out of this, and I am glad that you love me. I love you too. I think Cheney did more than simply admit to supporting a policy. Far be it from me to suggest that someone's opinion is enough to get them hanged for war crimes. I think that Cheney admitted to advocating for a policy, as a high ranking administration official, that was ultimately adopted by the administration, and that he (or his side) "won" the argument. Sullivan's hyperbole aside, that's enough of an admission to me that he had a crucial role in the adoption of the p

Poon- I agreed with SpeedRacer to move on, but my initial post was directed at you, so I suppose i should respond. I can't speak for Sullivan, but I am curious what you mean by causal (bolded) above. If we agree for purposes of this discussion, that waterboarding=torture=war crimes, what sort of causal connection would you need to see for a VP? The VP doesn't have the power to implement policy on his own. If that's the case, could there ever be a direct causal link? ETA: as for the law violated, GON cited to one in his link, but are we really debating whether torture violates law?

? Ok, but my point wasn't to suggest that we hang the guy for war crimes based on the interview. Just that he's the VP - he doesnt implement policy. He advocates policy. And the buck stops with him and the President (I think) for the policies. Alas, let's move on.

This is the relevant portion I was talking about (emphasis added): In your version of events, he only advocated it, and the policies happened to be implemented, so he techically "won", but he didn't implement them himself. And we aren't splitting hairs?

Again, have you read the transcript of the interview?

Have you read the transcript of the interview and the context in which he said it? He takes credit for winning battles in the administration over interrogation techniques. I dont know as much as I should about the history of the prosecution of war crimes, but it seems reasonable to me that the highest ranking officials of an administration that advocated it, and were responsible (in whole or in part) for its adoption as policy, would be considered guilty of war crimes. Again, if we accept, for argument's sake, that waterboarding = torture = war crimes, where would the buck stop for you?

Of course it is important. But would Cheney only be guilty if he was standing in the room ordering the interrogator to pour the water? Or as a high ranking official in the government, would advocating it as a way to interrogate or being the architect of the policy be enough? An adminstration that makes torture, as its official policy, an interrogation technique, is (arguably) guilty of war crimes. I am not on a personal crusade here. Just seems to me that "Cheney advocated it does not = war crime" seems to miss the point of the criticism.

Poon, come on. That's quite the splitting of hairs. Are you a lawyer or something? Seriously, though, maybe Cheney only admitted to supporting a war crime/toture. But it was torture that was carried out by the Bush Administration on his watch. This policy was presumably authorized by someone in the administration. If we've got the torture, and we've got the high ranking official openly admitting that he supported it, what more do you need? Are you debating whether the country waterboarded detainees? I don't think that's even debatable. Your analogy misses the point. You haven't