Derek Phillips

Thanks, Rosie!

If any of you angels on MySpace would add one of these songs to your page to help us get the word out, I'd love you forever. Sure, it's not as high caliber as Daniel love, but it's a start.

We've posted another song from the new album. "Here's to Us" kicks off Riviera's second album, Capital. Add the song to your MySpace page and help us get the word out.

Capital is due on Glorious Noise Records in October, 2006.

http://www.myspace.com/rivierasound

See us live and acoustic on Aug. 18 at the Kinetic Playground in Chicago.

not to quibble, but it's called "The Catfisherman."

 

great video you guys, excellent stuff. I just decided not ot drive 5 hours to see them in Nashville, but will be there for the show in Brooklyn on Sept. 9th.

Yes, someone here alerted me to that fact and I fixed it.

Hey guys, we have video of the Chicago show posted. Two songs from the acoustic early set: "The Catfish Man" and "Walt Whitman Bridge" are up now.

I think the problem with the estate/death tax issue (and frankly, the arguments that everyone (including me) are making in this thread) is that it is too broad of a brush.

 

There is not one universal stereotypical rich person in the world. The top 1% of this country is made up of money hungry jerks that get to the top on the backs of underpaid workers, and there are folks that stick their neck out, provide a valuable service to their community, start a company and provide jobs to folks.

 

Now obviously, I want the folks in the latter category to be as incentivized as possible to go out and to continue doing what they do, because quite frankly, I would not have a job without one of them in particular (i.e., the president of my company). Does an estate tax really disincentivize folks from sticking their flag in the sand and starting something? I don't know. But I do know that part of the incentive for people to become obscenely rich is the thought that they can support their families for generations to come.

 

You may not think its GOOD for there to be an aristocracy in this country and you may think that $$ left to children is "income" that should be taxed but these are opinions -- not truths. And frankly, if you believe in this country and the idea of the American dream (thats a whole other thread), you have to take the good with the bad. Part of why there is an aristocracy (and there is in every country, fyi) and part of the reason that generations of trust-fund kids grow up pissing off everyone around them, is that you probably have to have something like this to allow a supply-demand/capitalistic society to function.

I don't know how you can not see an inheritence as "income." What else is it? It's money in-coming to your household. Whether it's earned or inherited is irrelevant to me, it's money coming in and should, therefore, be taxed like all other income.

As for an aristocracy and the fact that all societies have them being some sort of argument in defense, that's silly and not much of an argument. All societies have lots of social and economical quirks, some good and some bad. What does that have to do with the fact that a concentration of unearned wealth leads to lower productivity and innovation. Mind you, I'm not even saying there should be a particularly HIGH taxation of inherited income, but the idea of low taxation (and even none for some people) seems counter productive and flies in the face of good old fashioned American ingenuity.

People always bring up this notion that minimum wage hikes will lead to layoffs, but it's horseshit. The last hike, over ten years ago, preceded the largest economic expansion in decades. Businesses don't hire labor out of kidness, they do it because they have a need. That need doesn't diminish because they have to pay more for it. If it did, then it was an inefficient operation in the first place.

As for the cost being passed to the consumer, someone already addressed the fact that competition (usually a favorite of free marketeers) cuts that out pretty damned quick.

As for the Death Tax and it already being taxed: we have a tax on income in this country. Yes, the builder of wealth has paid tax on income earned, but when that person dies and leaves money to an heir, that money become income for another person and is rightly taxed.

And the idea that it's GOOD to build an aristocracy in this country is soundly un-American!

Riviera is playing an acoustic set at the Kinetic Playground in Chicago on August 18. We've spent the last two months wrapping the album and this is likely the only show before our CD release in October. Hope to see you there.

More INFO

Commence obligatory flaming...

anyone see the episode of the office where michael tells oscar that "mexican" is an offensive term?

YES! Laughed right out loud when I read this. Nice call.

C'mon now, D. The question was which was worse...

 

Bragging about the influx of Indian Americans and the support he enjoys from them...

 

Or

 

Talking about how it would have been better to avoid a politically sticky situation

again, considering the context, i'd say biden's for sure. are you kidding me?!

If we're talking about context, go back and read Biden's full quote. He was bragging about the influx of Indian Americans and the support he enjoys from them. Sure, it was a bad soundbite but since you mentioned context...

The big stink is funny, but I have to admit I am amazed people didn't know this was a racial slur. I knew it as a kid.

It's August of a mid-term year, kids. This is when the fun really starts. You can expect something like this every fucking week.

As both a sender and receiver of media kits, I would say not to bother with anything beyond a CD and a one-sheet. If they want photos, have hi-res downloadables on your website. Seriously, save the paper and the postage.

A better bet is to go electronic. Have a website and a MySpace page. Exploit the fuck out of them. Look into an account on Sonicbids. That's a nice tool for booking and submitting to festivals.

Start off focusing on your town and state first. Build a nice homebase and then get out as often as you can.

Good luck.

Sounds very cool, Lou. Looking forward to seeing this.

Hopefully this Friday

Andrew Sullivan, a Conservative, is having this debate on his blog. One reader posted this bit of info that I think points this whole idea of funding into practical matters:

What you don't understand is that when a researcher conducts research, he is often involved with many projects. Therefore it is likely that one who would engage in embryonic stem cell research, funded by a state or private organization, will also be participating in research funded by federal agencies such as the NIH. The problem with this ban means that none of the researchers implements funded with federal money can ever be involved/associated with research funded by other means. This includes the lab space, every beaker, piece of paper, pencil, etc.! This is not practical in the slightest. That means that a researcher, say here at UCSF, who wants to tap into the money allocated by the state of California for stem cell research, would have to have a completely different facility whereby NOTHING funded with federal dollars can enter, and that likely includes the researcher himself. In academic medicine this is impossible.

Still looking for a legitimate link to the actual bill Bush vetoed, but here's some interesting related info:

Over the past two decades since the first "test-tube baby" was born, an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos have accumulated in more than 400 fertility clinics in the U.S.

 

Some people want to use those embryos for stem cell research that they hope could lead to cures for life-altering diseases. Bush and others say those embryos are human lives and must not be destroyed for science, even if they have the potential to help save lives.

 

Nightlight Christian Adoptions connects biological parents of those embryos with other families trying to conceive; so far 110 children have been born and an additional 20 are due by February.

ARTICLE

As for adult stem cell research, that continues. Many scientists in the field though think embryonic (or pre-embryonic, as the case may be) stem cell research has the most promise because those cells can become any cell-type in the body. That's why there's a focus on this type. They see it as the fastest route to possible cures. That's not to say adult stem cell research isn't also going on.

I don't know whay the adult research bill failed though. Most likely, there's a "poison pill" in the wording. It's a trick to insert soemthing you know the opposition will oppose to force them to vote against the entire bill. Think of John Kerry's "voted for the funding before I voted against it." He had to vote against the entire bill because there was something within it that was too objectionable to overlook.

But please, let's not rehash that old story. It's just a high-rpofile example I wanted to use.

I'm not an admin--hell, I haven't even been around lately--but can we take this off personal attacks or comments? I am all for debating legislation and politics, but a bulletin board doesn't seem like the place for us to debate personal family choices.

El Kev has beautiful twins and God bless 'em both.

I never really liked you guys anyway, so good riddance.

The only thing that truly offends me about you is the Riviera promotional juggernaut that bombs my email weekly.

Not lately, it hasn't...

here's a summary from the AP.

To qualify for federal funding under the bill, newer embryos could be used in studies only if they:

_Were created for the purposes of fertility treatment.

_Were donated by in vitro fertilization clinics with written, informed consent of those being being treated.

_Were "in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment" and would never be implanted in a woman.

_Would otherwise be discarded, as determined by those seeking treatment.

_Were not donated by patients induced to do so by financial or other incentives.

__

Source: "The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," H.R. 810.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

which is why parading those kids around as possible outcomes of the cells in question is disgusting and utter bullshit.

 

as i said yesterday, the 2 choices are use them for research or throw them in the garbage and he chose the garbage.

Thanks for that. I'm done here as it seems I have personally offended El Kevin, whom I love deply.

Sometimes I feel like this man is running our country:

 

You mean like a chilled out enetertainer?

Just so we're clear, am I wrong for wanting the adoption scenario over their donation to medical research?

No, but that has almost nothing to do with this legislation. Is it wrong for me to like cheese on my burger?

Ahh, got it. Never heard of that. Well, as a person that currently has a frozen embryo and going through the oft emotionally draining process of trying to find a way to conceive a child...I don't see the bad in preferring that said embryo be 'adopted' should we decide not to have another child and someone have the opportunity to give birth as well.

 

I see the benefit of stem cell research and i'm actually for it (thusly, not a huge fan of this veto)...however, some of you guys seem to be speaking in absolutes again w/out really knowing how hard it is to make that decision. You can say they become a 'real' person at X days/months/weeks, but still...we made that embryo, it comes from the both of us...it's not the 'oh yeah, we don't want it, just donate it to science' thing you think it is. Much like viatroy's moral stance against the war, this isn't just another clear cut political or scientific debate.

 

and back to the snowflake comment earlier, what is the matter w/ any of those kids being 'snowflake' kids? I think that's wonderful that two people who desperately wanted to be parents and share their love w/ someone get the opportunity to do so...and the child receiving the opportunity to be loved is pretty cool too.

Ah, but let's be clear. These are not even embryos, but cell clusters that may or may not one day become embryos that may or may not become fetus that may or may not become born human beings. This is the problem with Bush's rhetoric. Besides, the cells pertaining to this legislation are left over and slated for destruction as medical waste. These are cells that are not being adopted and the parents do not want them.

It means Bush is bad and you should get with the program.

Unless of course you have an argument against that position. We're all ears (or eyes, I should say).

Not forcing taxpayers to pay for embryonic stem cell research is legislating morality?

You can't force the willing. This research has wide support across the country. This is acting against the will of the people.