Good Old Neon

A friend of mine who I thought had mono - turns out he did

I haven't spoken with him in 3 years, but I hear he's pumping gas.

Back in high school, we drank behind the local Mall, hung out at the arcade and then, at the end of the night, took in a movie. I saw Dirty Dancing that way, high-school-drunk, and cried my fucking eyes out.

Then, a few years later, when it made its cable debut, I watched it again, this time I was sober - and it really sort of sucked.

Sober

..................................................Drunk

i am really enjoying this album after about six spins, and a highlight for me is rococo. have you paid attention to the lyrics? fits the message in my opinion. and, on the whole, it seems like a very cohesive, top-to-bottom listenable album.

 

i am not discounting your opinion...simply stating mine as it contrasts yours in the case that some board reader is wavering on whether to give it a shot or not.

All things being equal, I prefer “hot chocolate.”

Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed," Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor's efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes "that's exactly the attitude they want you to have."

"This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms," Maes said.

He added: "These aren't just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to."

Maes said in a later interview that he was referring to Denver's membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international association that promotes sustainable development and has attracted the membership of more than 1,200 communities, 600 of which are in the United States.

Denver became a member of the group in 1992, more than a decade before Hickenlooper became mayor. Eric Brown, the mayor's spokesman, said the city's contact with ICLEI "is limited."

George Merritt, a spokesman for the Hickenlooper gubernatorial campaign, said the group's goal is "to bring cities from all over the world together to share best practices and help create the kinds of communities people want to live and do business in. John Hickenlooper believes collaboration leads to smart decisions."

Hickenlooper has often touted bicycling as an environmentally friendly and healthy way for people to commute to work and has said he hopes more people will do so.

Last week, Hickenlooper upset some auto dealers on the eve of a fundraiser when he lauded the city's B-Cycle bike- sharing program at an event and asked: "How do we wean ourselves off automobiles?"

Maes, at the rally July 26, took aim at Denver's bike-sharing program, which he said was promoted by a group that puts the environment above citizens' rights.

The B-Cycle program places a network of about 400 red bikes for rent at stations around the city. It is funded by private donors and grants.

Maes said ICLEI is affiliated with the United Nations and is "signing up mayors across the country, and these mayors are signing on to this U.N. agreement to have their cities abide by this dream philosophy."

The program includes encouraging employers to install showers so more people will ride bikes to work and also creating parking spaces for fuel-efficient vehicles, he said.

Polls show that Maes, a Tea Party favorite, has pulled ahead of former Congressman Scott McInnis, the early frontrunner in the Aug. 10 primary for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. Maes acknowledged that some might find his theories "kooky," but he said there are valid reasons to be worried.

"At first, I thought, 'Gosh, public transportation, what's wrong with that, and what's wrong with people parking their cars and riding their bikes? And what's wrong with incentives for green cars?' But if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty," Maes said.

He said he's worried for Denver because "Mayor Hickenlooper is one of the greatest fans of this program."

"Some would argue this document that mayors have signed is contradictory to our own Constitution," Maes said.

Staff writer Jennifer Brown contributed to this story.

Source - http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894

Though I like both bands, at 39 - I relate to The National on a more personal level than Arcade Fire. Matt’s lyrics are, I don’t know, a bit more mature – are maybe a little more relevant to older listeners, where Win’s lyrics strike me as more relatable to someone in their late teens, early twenties. As for the songs, I think The National has shown a greater degree of consistency with respect to their awesomeness– imo.

Even if the word rococo is never used as a refrain again it will still be too soon.

On the whole, after several listens I have found The Suburbs underwhelming. It started out so promising, but towards the middle, it begins to just sort of meander along somewhat tunelessly. There's an EP's worth of strong to great material here, but I can think of six to eight tracks that, if trimmed, would have made for a stronger album.

The worst part, for me, is that the performers who engage in these practices, are the same artists who, because they are filthy rich beyond what most of their fans could ever imagine, could charge $5 or less per ticket, and still never have to worry about running out of money.

So fuck em.

Edit: With that said, if someone with enough disposable income burning through their pocket wants to spend several hundred dollars to attend a concert by a washed out has been band way beyond their prime, or one that lip syncs to their own CD, well, fuck them too.

I may be mistaken, but I think you might be referring to Carl Cassell.

 

I wish I could find some footage of Schorr reading the enemies list and his reaction when he got to his name.

Actually, you're not mistaken - I'm confused (and an idiot).

Damn - I'll miss his presence (and that awesome ponderous voice of his) on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.

Continuing my streak of post-apocalyptic fiction...

I keep mine in something that looks very similar to this (murse? European carry all?):

This is probably a really dumb question Crow, as I think you may have already indicated this in the past, but have you been diagnosed with depression, and if so, is it being treated? Based on this and prior posts, it sounds as though you are experiencing a major depressive episode.

I have atypical depression, which means I sort of have the opposite, though in some ways, similar problem, I could, if I allowed myself, sleep 16 or more hours a day, yet still wake up feeling as though I’d never slept. I do experience insomnia from time to time, but those episodes are usually associated with an accompanying panic disorder. At the moment, I’m taking 40 milligrams of Prozac and 1 to 2 milligrams of Ativan daily. MAOI’s are more effective in the treatment of atypical depression, but the side effects are many and oftentimes severe – though, if things don’t improve within the next year, I’m considering switching to Nardil or Emsam (an MAOI patch that, in its lowest dosage, mitigates the strict dietary restrictions of the other MAOI’s).

I rarely watched The West Wing, but I caught a few episodes, one of which contained the following bit of dialog – it really resonated with me:

Leo McGarry: "This guy's walkin' down a street when he falls in a hole. The walls are so steep he can't get out. A doctor passes by and the guy shouts up, "Hey you! Can you help me out?" The doctor writes a prescription, throws it down in the hole, and moves on. Then a priest comes along and the guy shouts up, "Father, I'm down in this hole; can you help me out?" The priest writes out a prayer, throws it down in the hole and moves on. Then a friend walks by. "Hey, Joe, it's me. Can ya help me out?" And the friend jumps in the hole. Our guy says, "Are ya stupid? Now we're both down here." The friend says, "Yeah, but I've been down here before and I know the way out."

I wouldn’t go so far as to say I know the way out, but, well, feel free to PM me if you’d like to chat or you’d rather speak in private.

Finally something Iran and I can agree upon - I applaud this new law and, with a bit of luck, look forward to its adoption here in the US.

Spent the weekend at the in-laws place in northern NH – spent much of my time in the river, fishing for trout – which translated means, I spent a good deal of time casting and cursing - getting snagged on just about any submerged branch or log within a hundred yards. Resulting in me hopping in the canoe every five minutes to row out in mostly vain attempts at retrieving my father-in-laws lures while everyone else drained bottles and cans, I pretty much just drained his tackle box.

i think this might be the only way to reasonably respond to a futureage rant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwyZ0ji1GRU

I like how he consistently downplays mainstream news sources (and more often than not, rightfully so) right before he links to a mainstream new source, in this case, CNN.

I’ve come to the conclusion that human nature is to blame for our current financial woes and economic disparities, and has been since man’s first “financial” exchange – and will be until the human race is but a memory or we evolve in some fundamental way – until then, enjoy the calamity while trying to do as little harm possible.

To quote Jarvis Cocker, “cunts are still running the world” – it’s as true now as it was 500 years ago, and will continue to be true until we turn out the lights.

I was teasing. It was thoughtless and cruel for Crow Daddy to ignore so many of our rich, cherished pastimes in his sweeping generalization of the state of our ennui.

Yeah, well quit teasing and get serious, we’re at war over here in case you hadn’t noticed – oh, that’s right, you’re probably haven’t noticed since you’re totally absorbed by The View, and I’m not talking about that hot broad next door – this is fucking reality, man, get with it.

So you don't love your country, is what you're saying?

No, and thanks for ignoring my larger point, which is that my interests include video games and hanging out on deserted islands.

 

 

America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is watching Big Brother.

I’ve never watched Big Brother, in fact, I don’t watch “reality” programs, well, that’s not entirely accurate, I do enjoy Deadliest Catch and that show where that guy goes into the wild accompanied only by his camera, not the one hosted by that Grilled Bear dude, the other guy, the one who doesn’t film by day and then spend his nights roughing it at the Motel 6. Truth be told, I don’t watch TV all that often, to unwind, I prefer to read or play video games – which, on account of being the father of a three year old, I don’t get to do all that often – which suits me just fine as I’d rather spend time with her than do just about anything else.

I’m not really all that into war games or military simulations – though I do enjoy a good FPS, they’re usually not the war types, say, Call of Duty or the new one that’s all the rage nowadays. Far Cry 2 on the XBOX 360 is pretty sweet, it’s more of an open ended sandbox type shooter, and not so scripted like the others I mentioned – though Half Life 2 was amazing, despite being heavily linear and scripted. If I were banished to a desert island that just happens to have electricity, and only had space for one game in my pack, I’d probably choose Grand Theft Auto 4, though Red Dead Redemption would be really difficult to pass over – hmmm…come to think of it, I’m not sure which one I’d take along – maybe I’d cheat and take both – or leave out something important like, say, a good bowie knife or a stack of Hustlers - anyways....

Hey, come to think of it, maybe I could pitch my time on the island as a reality show – do you think Americans would watch it, Crow?

Good perspective on this:

 

 

The Culture of Exposure

 

By DAVID BROOKS

The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.

 

So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.

 

The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy.

 

Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside.

 

It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night.

 

Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms.

 

Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.

 

Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage.

 

Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances.

 

Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.

 

In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.

 

And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

 

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.

 

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

 

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

 

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

 

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain.

 

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see.

I don't know, I tend to agree with Taibbi's take on the McChrystal affair - the one in which he trashes Brooks (through association) and CBS's Lara Logan, who, Lara did, reminded us that the press's job is to essentially remain subservient and obedient:

From Rolling Stone:

Lara Logan, You Suck

Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!

I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."

Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him. According to Logan, that's sneaky — and journalists aren't supposed to be sneaky:

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't — I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn't even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an "element of trust" that you're supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he's got to be able to trust that you're not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?

True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?

And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.

But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon's biggest contractors?

Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?

Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an "unspoken agreement" not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.

Then there's the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:

"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just — I don't believe it."

I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: "There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back."

Let me just say one thing quickly: I don't know Michael Hastings. I've never met him and he's not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I'd probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I'm being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let's just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.

But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I'd known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it.

As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!

Meanwhile, the people who don't have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public's eyes, your readers/viewers, you're supposed to be working for them — and they're not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!

Oh dear - Krugman's latest :

The Third Depression

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

In 2008 and 2009, it seemed as if we might have learned from history. Unlike their predecessors, who raised interest rates in the face of financial crisis, the current leaders of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank slashed rates and moved to support credit markets. Unlike governments of the past, which tried to balance budgets in the face of a plunging economy, today’s governments allowed deficits to rise. And better policies helped the world avoid complete collapse: the recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.

But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression. After all, unemployment — especially long-term unemployment — remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and shows no sign of coming down rapidly. And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.

In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks — but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity — but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.

Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.

It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.

So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 28, 2010, on page A19 of the New York edition.

Link - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html

James Kunstler puts it a little more bluntly:

Say what?

I cried like a baby, and loved it!!!