Doug C

Why not play smaller venues in cities that don't sell enough at the amphitheatres, theatres, etc.?

Wow! 31 songs with an opening act. Hell, it's An Evening with Wilco, as I was hoping before Royal Thunder was announced. Very excited. Thanks, bbop.

 

Panthers! Several years ago when I saw them at the Moon in Tallahassee, some guy periodically yelled, "Panthers, Jeff!" or "Panthers, Wilco!" throughout the show. When I listen to the recording, I always laugh when he does it. I hope he's there and they play Panthers. He'll probably rush the stage.

Sleater-Kinney

 

Entertain

Call The Doctor

Rollercoaster

Little Babies

Light Rail Coyote

Old 97s

 

Timebomb

The One

Nineteen

Doreen

Rollerskate Skinny

New Order

 

Age of Consent

Temptation

Love Vigilantes

All Day Long

1963

Way of Life  ed. Shit that's six. Oh well.

 

Belle and Sebastian

 

If She wants Me

The State I Am In

If You're Feeling Sinister

Expectations

The Wrong Girl

Paul Lynde

 I'd say nearly 100%, if not 100%, of all children 0-3 are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators....

Touche'!! Ha! Very true. We have to learn prejudice, and since we naturally form schemas, we develop prejudices.

Do you think a particular race is superior to another? I don't and it seems pretty straightforward to me. We've all seen racism and our experiences may have been affected (I almost said colored) by race, but that doesn't make someone racist. I think it's a bit overreaching to say that every person in this country is racist in some way.

I agree. Ever person in this country, if not the world, is prejudiced in some way. Not everyone practices discrimination, but we all have prejudices. Some people are prejudiced discriminators, some are prejudiced non-discriminators, but very few, if any, of us, are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators.

so I told you not to get your hopes up. As I expected a Georgia band by the name of Royal Thunder is playing the Southern dates. Their webise states that they are a mix of hard rock and modern metal. not all that interested. Looks like I can show up to the venue a little bit later then originally anticipated.

Yes, I agree. The description is making me expect deja vu from Asheville in 2005. Rose Hill Drive was the opener. My buddy and I got to our seats just as they took the stage. They looked like a mix of hard rock and metal stereotypes. Before we sat down, they opened with a power chord and my pal said, "That's enough. We're going back to the bar and I'm buying". So that's what we did. We returned for one of the best Wilco shows I've ever attended.

Although I made it very clear that I am in no way a racist, you are still demanding like a modern-day McCarthy that I submit to your questioning about something that was rightly relegated to the trash heap of history 50 years ago. I will reply to whatever I want, when I want, and you are free to do likewise without any goading from me.

 

And you can rest assured that I wouldn't still be mentioning it (or even caring about it) 10 days later if he chose not to respond.

Using your statement that race-based segregation was "rightly relegated to the trash heap of history 50 years ago", am I wrong in assuming that you agree that it should be illegal? If I am right in assuming this, then why do you believe that sexuality-based segregation should be legal and left to the free market? If my assumptions are correct, it appears to be a hypocritical stance. I ask you to please clarify and/or explain how you see them differently. I don't want to make any false assumptions. I thank you in advance.

It doesn't border on the ridiculous to ask someone saying that it should be legal for a business to refuse to sell to homosexuals because the free market will take care of said businesses, if they also believe that same reasoning should apply to businesses refusing to sell to blacks. That is all that I did.

I doubt that twoshedjackson believes '"that the entire south is filled with racists eager to throw us back to an ugly era". I know a way that you could be certain of his meaning, rather than make an assumption. You could ask him a direct question for clarification.

I Googled "Internet etiquette rules". I thoroughly read all 10 results on the 1st page, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#q=internet+etiquette+rules&safe=active&ssui=on and found no mention of "calling people out" or anything about asking direct questions during discussions. Maybe the other 1,649,990 results mention how "calling people out" and asking direct questions during a discussion is bad form and ill mannered, but I don't have the time to read them.

 

I don't understand how you can have a conversation/discussion without asking people direct questions.

 

And Louie B and others are correct. All politicians and parties say things that are untrue and hypocritical. But, as a group, not individually, and today, not at other times in history, Republicans and the Right have a monopoly on saying things that are bat shit crazy. 

I quite possibly just laughed the best ever. Thanks VC!

 

 

If I had front row tickets for the Indy show, I'd be bummed, too. At the legislators who passed the law. At my fellow Indianans who elected them.

 

 

And that's an issue. Legislatures, in theory, reflect the views of the majority of voters from the previous election. As I stated in a much earlier post, only 36% of Hoosiers voted in November and 53% of them voted Republican. The Indiana legislature wouldn't have passed the measure, nor would the governor have signed it, if they didn't feel that doing so would help them get reelected. I don't know how the majority of eligible Indiana voters feel about the issue, but I do know that most of them did not vote. Hopefully, regardless of the law being "clarified" or repealed, the majority of eligible Hoosiers go to the polls next election and vote all the legislators that voted in favor of the measure, and the governor, out of office.

Since I don't believe that I was bitching about hypocrisy - merely pointing out that a logical case can be made that it is an inconsistent stance - I don't believe that I am a loser.

Again, I agree with Hixter, a couple of posts up. If you analyze it, the hypocrisy is obvious. But if you analyze most stances, you can find inconsistencies. It is just as reasonable for someone to be bothered by the inconsistencies of Wilco's stance as it is reasonable for someone to applaud Wilco for taking a stand.

This reminds of February 2008 when 5 days before the date, Wilco postponed the Charleston, SC show to be on SNL. As I had tickets, I was not happy. I, similar to some Indy area fans, was like a dog with a bone. I wouldn't let it go and ran my logic into the ground, foolishly believing that the posters disagreeing with me would eventually see the light. I sounded like a major douche. I reread that shit a couple days ago and cringed. How I wish that I had made my point, once, maybe twice, and then let it the fuck go. Even though I was 44/45, I was fairly new to the internet, and lost sight of all reason. Any of you that remember, I apologize and I ask your forgiveness, unless you found me to be entertaining. All I can say in my defense is that, hey, it was 5 days notice, not 5 weeks, and it was to be on SNL, not to take a principled stance on a human rights issue.

 

Those of you still ranting, let it go. Trust me. You don't want to regret it even more than you already will.

Ditty,

I have a question. As an Indiana resident, are you in as much of a lather about the law as you are about the canceled show?

I think the band would have had a greater impact by playing the show and donating their pay to whatever cause(s) are fighting the new law. Hell, set up voter registration booths at the venue and have political opponents speak. Print up special T-shirts lampooning the governor. Incorporate it into the official show poster and plaster them all over town. 

 

I'm sure the band will do something to make it up to the fans, but right now it looks like they're punishing the fans in Indiana, and I doubt more than 1% of them voted for the governor or approve of the law.

I don't begrudge Wilco being against the law and wanting to make a point, I respect that, but I agree with Hixter. They could likely have had a greater impact by doing the things Hixter mentioned, along with some others. They could highlight how less than 36% of Hoosiers voted in November and 53% of those voted Republican. It is up to the Indiana citizens to change this law specifically and their government in general. Radio interviews, speaker(s) on stage, etc. highlighting how Wilco fans and other good Hoosiers need to get involved and make their voices heard. 

 

Again, I don't condemn Wilco at all but I do believe that they could have found a more balanced approach. I was born in Indiana and have family there.

Yes, it's bad form. Poor manners, in other words. Someone made a ridiculous statement about a rather large portion of the country and for some reason it's imperative that I respond, and my polite refusal to jump when commanded is met with thinly veiled accusations of racism? Sorry, but that's not how I hold conversations, face-to-face or otherwise.

 

I'm not a racist, I've never been a racist and I have no room for racists in my life. With that out of the way, I guess it's time for you to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife.

How is it poor manners to ask someone for clarification? If that is your definition of ill-mannered and boorish, you and I received different educations.

 

I did not ask you to respond to whether or not you are a racist. You stated that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose and the law should stay out of it. You stated that the free market would weigh in regarding such business practices. Twoshedjackson asked if this would apply to "No blacks allowed". You didn't respond. I was interested in your response and directly asked you about it. If that is bad internet form and poor manners, then I am uncivil.

 

Please quote where I called you a racist. I did no such thing. I simply asked whether or not you thought that racist business practices should be illegal. I again ask for a response.

Sorry, but calling people out on the Internet is bad form. I will respond to what I'd like, when I'd like. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much use in engaging in a discussion where someone paints tens of millions of people as racists because of their geographic location.

 

Ha ha! Bad form! If we were having a conversation face-to-face, and the same exchange between you and Twoshedjackson occurred, I would respond in the exact same way and directly ask you to reply to him. That's called having a conversation.

 

I find it odd that you are unwilling to state your opinion regarding the legality of a business posting signage that states their refusal to provide goods and services to blacks.

Good point. Let businesses in the south get out their "No Blacks Allowed" signs while you're at it. I'm sure they were never out of reach.

In my opinion, Hixter avoided directly responding to this. Therefore, I directly ask him if he believes that it should be legal for businesses to display "No Blacks Allowed" signs and to refuse to serve blacks?

I am happy that there is still no word. I haven't been hoping for Steve Gunn, I've been hoping for no one.

Wow, a lot of haters

How old are you?

The Wabash Cannonball, Roy Acuff. That was a great song. I was probably 9-11 years old. I am so fortunate that I was able to hear that high lonesome voice of the King of Country Music. Thanks mom and dad!

 

Though the title doesn't say "first great rock song heard in concert", that would be Bastille Day, Rush. Dec. 9, 1977. Their set opened with Bastille Day. That opening riff blew my 14 year old self away. All smiles, bobbing head and pumping arm. Powerful!