Complete Control

The Times They Are A-Changin'

2011-05-03T17:09:00.001-06:00

I started this blog way back in 2005. I was in college and thought I had a lot of Interesting and Important Things to Say About Life and Politics and Culture. I remember I was visiting my friend Davin's house in Virginia when I signed up and started blogging. I've been doing it off and on here (and occasionally elsewhere on the side) ever since, although my bursts of posting have been fewer and fewer over the years.

The reality is that I'm not the prolific writer that I was (or thought I was) in college and, while I'm still a voracious reader of the politics and the music and the sports and the culture, my comments tend towards the sarcastic and the pithy as opposed to the more long form style I associate with a blog like this.

So what does this mean? Well, I'm not taking this blog down and I'm not calling it Officially Retired or anything. I may have a hankering to post something that I think would fit well here, and I want to leave the door open to do that. But, for the most part, I think my internet habits have shifted past the traditional personal blog format as such.

Instead, you'll be able to find me in a couple of other spots on the internet. For starters, in case you hadn't noticed the sidebar, I'm pretty active on the Twitters. So, be sure to follow me or whatever if you are so inclined.

Second, I'm opening up a Tumblr blog and going to start posting there. This is sort of an experiment, to see if the Tumblr format increases my activity when it comes to blogging.

And, as I said, I may still decide to post something here occasionally. But I'd be sure to link to it from my other internet digs if I did.

So, sayonara. 'Til we meet again.

Christmas Music That Doesn't Suck: Rush Coil - 8-Bit Christmas

2010-12-09T22:55:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the super-late entry today. This is, well, 8-bit Christmas music and it is spectacular. I've always believed we needed to spit Christmas music out of my NES to really usher in the holiday season. Wish granted.

Here's "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" from the record:

Anyways, grab the album here or here.

Christmas Music That Doesn't Suck: Various Artists - A Boston Rock Christmas

2010-12-08T09:45:00.001-07:00

A long out-of-print EP featuring some great early 80s Boston bands. Includes one of my personal favorites of early 80s hardcore: SSD. Hip Christmas has a nice review of the album here.

Here's SSD's "Jolly Old Saint Nick" from the record:

Anyways, grab the album here.

Christmas Music That Doesn't Suck: Red Simpson - Truckers' Christmas

2010-12-07T16:26:00.000-07:00

No Christmas album is trucklier than, well, a Christmas album about trucking. Red Simspson was part of the country-songs-about-truck-driving nice that seems to have been slightly popular in the late 60s and 70s. This is pretty catchy, affable Christmas music that would fit in well on a Buck Owens album (who Red Simpson wrote songs for). There's a lot of kitsch value here, but the hooks are strong enough and Simpson is a decent enough musician that the album actually works on its own merits as well. Super cornball, but I can promise you that you haven't heard these songs in the mall so far.

Here's "Truckin' Trees For Christmas" from the record:

Anyways, grab the album here.

Christmas Music That Doesn't Suck: Elvis Presley - Elvis' Christmas Album

2010-12-06T11:59:00.001-07:00

One of the titans of Christmas music, and this one is actually for good reason. Elvis plays fantastic Christmas music here, including a number of standards and some originals - including the seminal "Blue Christmas." Side two is given to religious material, which is also quite good. These songs have been repackaged about a million times with other quality Elvis Christmas material, but there really is nothing quite like the original album.

Here's "I'll Be Home For Christmas" from the record:

Anyways, grab the album here.

Christmas Music That Doesn't Suck: The Blackstone Valley Sinners - The Cold Hard Truth About Christmas

2010-12-05T18:23:00.002-07:00

This is a side project by the one and (I assume) only, Slim Cessna of Slim Cessna's Auto Club fame. Under the BVS banner, Slim and some friends releases an off-kilter country album fueled by a drum machine and Slim's ability to conjure a weird, warped vision of the world around us. It was called It's a Sin, and it was pretty darned good (and features a couple songs that would also be recorded under the SCAC flag). But the BVS Christmas album is, I think, their real achievement.

Christmas Reviews calls the album "twisted themes of love gone horribly wrong." What it really is, is that great Denver Sound SCAC does but with a Christmas thread strung through it.

Here's "Christmas Will Be Just Another Lonely Day" from the record:

Anyways, grab the album here.

The Sunday Music Video: Pomplamoose - Deck The Halls

2010-12-05T16:07:00.004-07:00

Every hipster knows Pomplamoose, a sort of gag band which - like Nouvelle Vague - has the virtue of being quite good. Here's their new Christmas video:

There's a good cause attached, listen to what they're laying down after the song.

The Sunday Music Video: CocoRosie - Werewolf

2010-11-28T16:17:00.000-07:00

I'll be honest, like anyone who preferences punk and post-punk, I'm naturally scared of all music trends developed after 1984. That said, this is weird and enjoyable and contemporary (as of 2007, anyways):

Happy Thanksgiving!

2010-11-25T16:27:00.001-07:00

If you celebrate Thanksgiving, happy Thanksgiving to you. If you don't, happy Thursday to you. Here's a traditional Thanksgiving song for today:

The Sunday Music Video: Tim Fite - Big Mistake

2010-11-21T13:40:00.000-07:00

No big backstory for this one. It just popped up on my ipod the other day and I'd sort of forgotten how much I like the song:

Hope y'all have been having a great weekend!

The Sunday Music Video: Johnny Cash - Wanted Man

2010-11-14T11:35:00.002-07:00

It's been a Johnny Cash kinda day:

A performance from his seminal At San Quentin album, still probably one of my favorite albums of all time (my two preferred formats of it are the excellent multi-disc deluxe edition released a few years ago and the superb sounding Sundazed reissue of the original album that came out just a few weeks ago). "Wanted Man" was written by Bob Dylan for the Man in Black. Love it.

NEW BLAWG!

2010-11-10T21:51:00.000-07:00

Hah, so regular updating didn't last long. I'll try to be back into the swing of things soon. Having some good conversations about anti-authoritarianism and movement building that may germinate into a post or two sometime in the future. However, I did want to plug a new blog I just started (so you can get in on the ground floor!). It's one o' them "high concept" blargs that's all the rage these days. And this is what it is called:

Music Uptight White People Complain About

That's right folks, it's a blog where I share the music that uptight white people have complained to me about playing. Where the complaint is remembered, I use direct quotes and I try to color the short tales of uptight white people being jerkfaces with my own short commentary as needed. So far, all upcoming entries are culled from personal experience - although I plan to set up some kind of submission process in the near future, otherwise I'll run out of material far too quickly - and I'm trying to shy away from the low-hanging fruit of roaming internet message boards because, well, that just seems to easy. It's more impactful if you realize the uptight white person in question actually saw fit to complain to the person playing the music (me) how much what they were hearing sucked.

Enjoy!

The Sunday Music Video: Slim Cessna's Auto Club - Pine Box

2010-10-24T15:49:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the lack of posts. I have a couple of post drafts that I'm slowly working on. Might not get much out of me for another couple of weeks though.

Like last week, I wanted to pick something that was seasonally appropriate. This one isn't as obviously "Halloween-ish" as last week's pick, but I think it's a good choice. Lots of Slim Cessna songs would work, actually. This one has a really creepy, somber vibe to it that I think is perfect for these waning fall days:

I might add some more music videos and whatnot throughout the week, in celebration of this most awesome of holidays.

The Sunday Music Video: Julie Driscoll - Season of the Witch

2010-10-17T20:49:00.001-06:00

It's almost Halloween, so I picked a nice little number appropriate to the season:

I like both this and the groovy Donovan version. Just something about this song, man, makes it appropriate for this time of year.

When The Stranger Comes Along

2010-10-15T23:14:00.000-06:00

An unpaid intern over at The Stranger recently "came out" as an anarchist and posted a blawg entry about it. Interesting read, but maybe even more interesting are the comments. Remember, these are supposed to be be hep, tolerant libruls who groove on peace and equality. Instead, well, I think it's safe to characterize the bulk of these comments as slightly antagonistic. Hostile, even. Actually, even more than hostile I might characterize the tenor of the comment thread as something akin to a witch hunt. Anyhoo, I commented and figured I'd post my comment here, since a lot of it works fairly well as a stand-alone post (I redacted a paragraph of personal info from my there-anonymous post, otherwise the post is left as-is):

I just want to voice my appreciation for UI posting his original, er, post and then being willing to wade into these quite extensive comments to address the supporters and the detractors (and the detractors of both the respectful and the hateful flavors).

[redacted personal info]

There are many, many different threads of thought going on here but I wanted to throw my two cents in on a couple of more basic ones. The "hypocrite" train of thought seems to have been raised a few times and I'm always reminded of this little axiom: "do not blame the man whose legs are broken for accepting crutches." The state breaks our legs and then gives us crutches - and we're told that we should just be grateful for the crutches. I mean, yeah, I'd rather have the crutches than not have them but what I'd really like is for my legs not to be broken in the first place. It's not hypocrisy to use the crutches given to you by the state which first breaks your legs.

I'm also mildly intrigued by how statists in this comment thread are engaging with social contract theory. The majority actually just seem to basically reject it - there seems to be a tacit admission running through a lot of these comments that, no, no one actually REALLY consents to give up their sovereignty to a government authority in order to receive the benefits of the rule of law. Many comments seem to be in the vein of "it happens against our will to all of us, just get over it." Which, okay sure, but you're ceding the argument of legitimacy to the anarchists by going that route and - I guess - just postulating that arguments of legitimacy are basically pointless. I dunno, I think it's an important issue.

The other way people engage with the social contract theory issue is a two-fold approach to suggesting that - at some point - yes, we do actually cede our sovereignty to the state willingly. Usually, this is formulated by suggesting that at some point we choose to "love or leave it" (which, as an aside, is not only a great catchphrase but was turned into a wonderfully snotty punk song called "My America" by the F.U.'s - not anarchists at all, but I love 'em) and by NOT leaving the country we're willingly ceding your sovereignty. This is, by any common sense appraisal, completely and utterly absurd. Besides the fact that most statists assume you're not a rational actor until the age of 18 - and thus not really capable of being responsible for whatever conditions you find yourself in when you reach 18 (most 18 year olds do not have sufficient resources to just pack up and leave the country) - it ignores the fact that in order to leave this country you have to engage in a system designed by states to simply transfer you from state to state. No matter what, you have to cede your sovereignty to SOME state or another, one cannot simply go without.

Here's a thought experiment for people who actually believe in social contract theory: imagine what would happen if you opted out of the state. You say "you know what? I won't ask for any services, you can disconnect all utilities and services going to my piece of property. Electricity, water, fire protection, etc, etc. I won't ask for any services from the state, ever. I'll let the state keep what I've paid into social security and medicare so far. I won't ask any refunds for the wars I've helped finance against my will or the police force I don't believe in (or anything else). You, the state, will never have to answer my calls for police or hospital service, or anything else. I have my own well, my own garden and farm animals, my own power generator and my own stockpile of guns. You can totally ignore me, as long as I stay on my own land, and I'll just ignore you. As long as no one sets foot on my property I won't set foot on any state-controlled land." That sounds... pretty fair, to me. This hypothetical citizens refuses to give up their sovereignty and makes clear that they won't ever "leech" off the state or anyone else.

This citizen will be allowed to terminate their social contract. right? Of course not. If a citizen of the USA (or any other country) tried this, they would be arrested. And if they resisted, they would be killed. Any "social contract" you enter with the state is entered into through coercion and, as the state itself actually recognizes, contracts entered into through coercion are not valid.

Thirdly, I've seen anarchists called "extremists" regularly in these comments. What is the more extremist position to take, that society can only exist under one particular model of organization (and anyone who disagrees is a "sociopath"), or that there may be a multitude of ways for people to live and organize and interact with each other? I don't know about you, but the former seems the markedly more rigid, dogmatic and, yes, extremist position to take.

As I said, lots of issues worth discussing here. Those criticisms just raised my eyebrows in particular because they seem so obviously wrong.

My only real criticism of UI - other than that he probably prefers a different flavor of anarchism than the one I would endorse (which is more critique than criticism, and I'm not much for internecine anarchist debate anyhow) - is the use of the term "rape". Yeah, I've heard the arguments for why it's appropriate in that but I still don't agree with them - there's just too much social baggage for it to be an effective word to use in this instance. So, just something to think about for anyone trying to present anarchist positions in a way that will engage non-anarchists.

Peace.

So, yeah. That sure is what I wrote.

Superman and Batman are Friends, Y'all

2010-10-13T21:08:00.000-06:00

This might be the best portrayal of the Superman/Batman relationship ever.

The Sunday Music Video: Solomon Burke - I Can't Stop Loving You

2010-10-10T14:29:00.000-06:00

Well, word is that Solomon Burke passed away this morning, at age 70. So, it seems appropriate to enjoy some footage of him performing "I Can't Stop Loving You" from a live broadcast performance in 1987:

Burke was one of the greats, he'll be missed.

Burn, Baby, Burn: A Link Roundup

2010-10-07T14:31:00.000-06:00

The buzz this week seems to have been the Tennessee Firefighters who let a home burn to the ground whose owners hadn't paid a 75 dollar service fee. Now, I side with the majority whose opinion is that it was wrong for the fire department to do, but I don't share the opinion I've seen voiced by a number of pwogessives and libruls that this is an example of some future Libertarian existence or the Free Market gone awry. Look: there's a government-mandated monopoly on firefighting services which a) create a monopoly on potential service providers, and b) make it basically impossible for community-oriented local solutions to take hold except in some specific parts of the country. I think that when the state creates an environment where it mandates that it's the only game in town, it has a moral obligation to respond to an even like the one that took place. That said, it's not hard to imagine a myriad of alternatives one would find preferable to the current situation. Anyhow, I just wanted to share a few links on the subject that I found interesting.

First, Radley Balko over at The Agitator asks his readers what they think about the subject and the comments section is (unusually, for a libertarian blog) fairly interesting. Also included is discussion of a Puppy Mill ballot question that is appearing in Missouri.

BroadSnark mentions the incident in one of her news roundups.

Finally, Roderick Long over at Austro-Athenian Empire has an in-depth and insightful post which examines both issues surrounding the incident as it happened as well as potential alternative approaches to firefighting and how a freed market may have responded in this scenario. Definitely a must read.

Of course, there are plenty of other places all over the interwubs where this issues has been discussed, but these were just a few from folks who I find particularly interesting (even if I don't endorse every point being made in all cases).

Super Friends/Office Space Mashup Video

2010-10-07T14:06:00.000-06:00

I guess this is kinda old, but I've only just now seen it and it's one of the funniest things I've seen in quite awhile:

The Aquaman moment is sheer brilliance.

Flex's Mix for Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #11

2010-10-05T11:28:00.000-06:00

I made this a couple weeks back but forgot to crosspost it here. So, er, here it is. For your musical pleasure:

Stroking the Nerdfan's Lizard Brain, Part II

2010-10-04T15:01:00.000-06:00

Just a short followup of a couple news items which seem related to the previous post, dealing with nerdfan entitlement and misogyny. A short excerpt from Newsarama on the recent Superman/Batman: Apocalypse release:

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse is adapted from the Jeph Loeb/Michael Turner Superman/Batman story arc, “Supergirl,” where Kara Zor-El made her triumphant return to the DCU after crash landing on Earth and fighting Darkseid and his minions on Apokolips. But don’t let the title fool you, Romano told Newsarama this is Supergirl’s story completely.

[...]

If this is Supergirl’s journey, why doesn’t her name doesn’t appear in the title? “I think the main reason why they didn’t call this piece Supergirl is because for some reason the Wonder Woman home video that we made, which was very, very good and filled with male characters, didn’t sell well,” she told us. “And so marketing people said, female titled pieces don’t sell well. So this is a female piece, it’s got a very strong feminine character in it but they called it Superman/Batman: Apocalypse just to get people to come into the video stores and buy them.”

Well played, nerds. The allergy the nerdfan community has towards even a hint of a leading female character is amazing. Basically, comic book creators have to trick their fanbases into reading stories where women are lead characters. That is awesome.

Next up is a piece Laurie Penny at The New Statemen about the recently released film The Social Network. I'll quote a few bits here, but the whole thing is worth reading:

The Machiavellian machinations of modern capitalism become a lot clearer when one realises that much of it is built, owned and run by people who couldn't get a girlfriend in college. The Social Network, David Fincher's new film about the founding of Facebook, is an elegant psychodrama of contemporary economics: flash, fast moving and entirely founded on the principle of treating other human beings as hostile objects.

The film's basic formula is the familiar blogs-to-bling-and-bitches redemptive parable of male geek culture, with the added bonus that it happens to be based on real events. The protagonist, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, is a brilliant nineteen-year-old coder. His painful social ineptitude, as told here, gets him savagely dumped by his girlfriend, after which, drunk and misunderstood, he sets up a website to rate the physical attractiveness of the women undergraduates of Harvard, thus exacting his revenge upon the female sex that has so cruelly spurned his obvious genius.

We know by now, however, that unappreciated nerds eventually grow up to inherit or at least aggressively reappropriate the earth, and so it is for Zuckerberg: his website becomes the prototype for Facebook, a venture which will eventually make him a billionaire, mobbed by beautiful groupies and hounded by lawsuits from former friends and business associates desperate for a share of his fame and fortune. It's a fairytale happy ending, as imagined by Ayn Rand.

[...]

The only roles for women in this drama are dancing naked on tables at exclusive fraternity clubs, inspiring men to genius by spurning their carnal advances, and giving appreciative blowjobs in bathroom stalls. This is no reflection on the personal moral compass of Sorkin, who is no misogynist, but who understands that in rarefied American circles of power and privilege, women are still stage-hands, and objectification is hard currency.

[...]

There is a certain type of nerd entitlement that is all too easily co-opted into a modern mythology of ruthless capitalist exploitation, in which the acquisition of wealth and status at all costs is phrased as a cheeky way of getting one's own back on those kids who were mean to you at school. As somebody whose only schoolfriends were my dungeons and dragons team, I understand all too well how every socialist and egalitarian principle can pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming urge to show that unattainable girl or boy who spurned your dorky sixth-form advances just what they were missing.

The narrative whereby the nerdy loner makes a sack of cash and gets all the hot pussy he can handle is becoming a fundamental part of free-market folklore. It crops up in films from Transformers to Scott Pilgrim; it's the story of Bill Gates, of Steve Jobs, and now of Mark Zuckerberg. It's a story about power, and about how alienation and obsessive persistence are rewarded with social, sexual and financial power.

As I said, the whole thing is worth a read. Nerd culture, increasingly, seems like a particular reflection of an increasingly atomised contemporary society. From warfare - where unmanned killer drones are launched into countries like Pakistan to kill terrorists and innocent civilians with a practical detachment that turns actual human lives into totally abstracted statistics ("only 20% of the people who die in our unmanned attacks are civilians? That's a great percentage!"), to any of the zillions of issues covered in your feminist blog of preference, to the transformation of the citizenry into both a consumer group and a commodity itself.

What's so lame about the nerd community is that they seem to not only be succumbing to these trends, but embracing them.

The Green Fields of the Mind

2010-10-04T00:02:00.002-06:00

Another baseball season ended this weekend for all but a handful of teams. My own teams were not among them. Here's the perfect piece of writing to close a baseball season:

It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops. Today, October 2, a Sunday of rain and broken branches and leaf-clogged drains and slick streets, it stopped, and summer was gone.

[...]

That is why it breaks my heart, that game--not because in New York they could win because Boston lost; in that, there is a rough justice, and a reminder to the Yankees of how slight and fragile are the circumstances that exalt one group of human beings over another. It breaks my heart because it was meant to, because it was meant to foster in me again the illusion that there was something abiding, some pattern and some impulse that could come together to make a reality that would resist the corrosion; and because, after it had fostered again that most hungered-for illusion, the game was meant to stop, and betray precisely what it promised.

Of course, there are those who learn after the first few times. They grow out of sports. And there are others who were born with the wisdom to know that nothing lasts. These are the truly tough among us, the ones who can live without illusion, or without even the hope of illusion. I am not that grown-up or up-to-date. I am a simpler creature, tied to more primitive patterns and cycles. I need to think something lasts forever, and it might as well be that state of being that is a game; it might as well be that, in a green field, in the sun.

From A Great and Glorious Game: Baseball Writings of A. Bartlett
Giamatti, © 1998 by A. Bartlett Giamatti.

Full article.

The Sunday Music Video: Laurie Anderson - O Superman

2010-10-03T14:06:00.000-06:00

I'm gonna switch my old "Friday Music Video" feature (which I was terrible about actually posting) with a "Sunday Music Video" feature, which I'll hopefully be better about remembering to post. Let's kick it off with Laurie Anderson's classic "O Superman":

I think the first time I ever encountered this song was when it was used in an early episode of Northern Exposure. It stuck in my head, but I didn't really familiarize myself with the actual track until I picked it up in some Newbury Comics compilation or another. I really dig this track and the little else I've heard of Laurie Anderson. I should track down more of her material sometime.

Housecleaning and Links

2010-10-03T00:02:00.000-06:00

If you haven't noticed, I finally revamped the layout of the blog a little. It's basically the same, but uses a more contemporary template which is a little cleaner looking and allows for a little more customization. Hope you like it.

You'll also notice I've added links to the sidebar. I'll go over some of the additions here:

Folks I Know:

The Uncarved Bloc [eumaas] - My good friend eumaas' blog, a discussion of mysticism, philosophy and anarchism. Thoughtful pieces well worth a read.

Political Blogs:

BroadSnark - Anarchism from a female perspective, which is relatively rare in anarchist circles.

Empire Burlesque [Chris Floyd] - Floyd's tagline for the blog is "High Crimes and Low Comedy in the American Imperium". Writings in a similarly morally consistent vein as Glenn Greenwald.

Lawyers, Guns & Money - Partisan, statist blogging but in a usually thoughtful vein and with some interesting non-political commentary (including baseball and drawing). Also, super awesome blog name.

Tiny Revolution, A - More pretty quality statist blogging. Jonathan Schwartz offers insight and a decent dose of snark.

Who is IOZ? - Extremely snarky libertarian/anarchist commentary, usually of the meta-blogosphere variety.

Wish You Orwell - Yossi Gurvitz's blog about life in Israel, including contemporary commentary as well as writings on his time in the army, history of the country, etc.

Geek Life Blogs:

Invisible Jetcast - Combo blog and podcasts focused on Wonder Woman (who, if my last post didn't make clear, is a comic character I like quite a bit). Great stuff.

jBlum's Journal - Jon Blum's livejournal. Great (positive) commentary on Doctor Who, various other nerd interests, and life in general.

Nerds Ruin Everything - Well they (we) do.

Red Carpet Superhero - Fashion advice on dressing reminiscently of various superheroes. Don't question it.

I also added some webcomics and such but don't feel like going over any more, so check out the column for what interests ya.

Stroking the Nerdfan's Lizard Brain (Part 1 of an Ongoing Series?)

2010-10-02T18:41:00.002-06:00

I was thinking of writing a little post on why I consider myself a "DC Man" in the comics world and some of my personal experiences in how I grew up with comics characters, but that's gonna wait for now. Instead, I'll point readers to this bit of news that David E. Kelly is going to be adapting a new Wonder Woman television series. Now, I never really watched enough of The Practice or Ally McBeal to have an opinion on either show, but I watched Boston Legal regularly while it was on the air and thought it was an excellent mainstream comedy/drama with well-realized (if imperfect, male and female) characters. Does this mean the new show is a guaranteed success? No, but I do think it's at least an intriguing enough combination of talent and franchise to warrant some interest.

Nerds, of course, being nerdfans do not seem to share this opinion. The comments in this news article are a par-for-the-course exercise in rampant sexism, overwrought hysteria, cultural conservatism and fanboy entitlement. Let's pick some low hanging fruit and look at some highlights (all quotes are [sic]).

Right off the bat, "lyle" is concerned that Wonder Woman will reflect lowest-common-denominator-culture and, impressively, manages to get a swipe in at the new WW uniform:

Please, Lord, no industry skrags as WW. No Snooki.
Please, Lord, no bolt on 21st century implants, anorexia, lip injections, ‘attitude’ – Lynda Carter is memorable because she played her virtuous part totally, with no ‘winking’ – and no updated failure of a uniform. Spend lots of money on effects and bras.

I guess I'd rather not have Snooki play Wonder Woman either, but probably wouldn't mind it if she had 21st century "attitude" (which I assume is code for contemporary feminism).

The comments roam into a discussion of the relative attractiveness of Lynda Carter. "Neil" weighs in:

I was in my teens and early twentys in the 70’s and WW wasn’t watched by anyone I knew. Way too wholesome and bland for my tastes. Lynda Carter? As far as I knew, she didn’t have a vagina. So there you go, here’s hoping they get someone with a vagina this time.

So, there you have it. Lynda Carter didn't have a vagina, the new Wonder Woman should. Get this man a job in casting.

Commenter "ert" decided someone's gotta tell it like it is:

it’ll never work. never in a series and never in a movies. the bar is set way to high and a female hero would never be worthwhile. yea, i said it. not that this needs to be dragged on but anjelina jolie would be joke.

Yeah! Female characters don't work, because they're all concerned about, like, feminine hygiene products and stuff. Hold me.

"Tom" see an opportunity to bring a little political commentary to the table:

Hey how about casting Nancy Pelosi as Wonder Woman? I can picture her in the Lynda Carter outfit. She fits the bill in that she is ancient, knows what is best for us and here to save humanity. Come to think if it, didn’t we just by her a jet?

HAHA! Oh man, it's funny because Nancy Pelosi is a powerful political figure in Washington AND SHE'S A WOMAN! That's the joke! Also, apparently she is "old".

"Steinmetz" is more concerned with the lifestyles of other commenters:

Why don’t you go outside and find a life for yourself that will be worth dying for instead of waiting for the next television show to come on.

Oh man, it's almost not even worth mentioning, but I just love people posting comments telling other commenters to get a life. It's so deliciously un-self aware (and yes, I am aware of how ridiculous it is to make fun of internet comments on a blog).

I'm gonna show a comment tree of folks replying to each other. "Sorry" starts it out:

The new Wonder Woman costume is terrible. The classic costume is part of the character – what makes her recognizable. If you put her in a black leather jacket, why bother buying the rights to Wonder Woman? Just write a show about some woman in a black jacket if you want to throw everything that’s unique out the window.

Okay, fair enough. I don't really agree with his point - if the only thing that makes a character different from other nameless, generic characters is a costume, then that character is probably in trouble regardless of a clothing change - but "Edwin J" decides to opine on said costume change:

I must agree. Unfortunately we live in times where the leftist propaganda machines of the world have been very effective in teaching “hate America”. Having a red white and blue uniform doesn’t serve that purpose very well….not so much a conspiracy as a “movement”. Just the same Linda Carter was both HOT and virtuous, two qualities no longer valued – Hey, girls just want to have fun not be responsible because that’s not “fun”…..:-(

Yikes, okay, someone watches Fox News. Anyways, I don't have much to say about this comment except that just because DC changed Wonder Woman's costume, it probably doesn't mean they "hate America". Also, of course, we have some creepy commentary on Lynda Carter's "hot"-ness and "virtuous"-ness and some totally unconnected (or at least, it's not a connection I've been able to make yet) point about how women have too much fun, I guess? Which I'm pretty sure means "stay in the kitchen and don't have casual sex." Anyhow, Cinda responds:

Since when did men like virtuous girls, part of teh reason girls are so “easy” now days is because men/boys and our society (run by men0 have taught girls they have to be sexy and give up their “virtue” to get a guy, which is a shame. But its a fact most guys will drop a girl unless hse “gives it up”.

Now, of course I think men who try to pressure women into having sex with them when they'd rather not are sleazeballs. And there are some pretty screwy cultural expectations placed on women when it comes to sex and relationships. That said, this comment seems to veer dangerously close to "slut shaming" with its interchangable use of virtuousness and not engaging in sexual activities. Our friend from earlier, "Neil", closes things out:

Sorry, Edwin J, ‘hot and virtuous’ is an oxymoron. Besides, how hot can a mannequin be?

I don't even know what this means. Attractive women are always sexually active? Women who aren't "hot" never have (pre-marital, presumably) sex? I don't know what mannequins have to do with anything, either.

"[C]onnie" has more on the anti-American sentiments that pervade DC Comics:

No, they did it to take the Red White and Blue stars and stripes off her costume. God forbid she represent the wonderful spirit of America since we are so awful. Remember the reason she had the costume made that way was because the Americans were for Truth and Justice and all that is good. Apparently that isn’t true anymore.

First, let's remember that this is an article on an announcement of a new television series, not an article on Wonder Woman's new costume. Second, this argument is so stupid it makes my brain hurt. Third, we are pretty awful.

Folks like "TimeTraveler" just can't get over the new costume:

The new wonder woman is a giant fail. Women aren’t going to support her because she looks like the hooker version of wonder woman and despeite the new boobs even red blooded real American males are going to have reservations because of the anti American sentiment expressed by changing her all American image.

Slut-shaming, references to "red blooded real American males" and braindead jingoism. In other words, the classic nerdfan.

This one from "..." actually isn't too bad:

Have they learned NOTHING from Bionic Woman, Knight Rider, etc.? This will be horrendous. It’ll be cancelled by sweeps.

There's sort of a good point here: remakes can often be not as successful as original source material. That said, this still reeks too much of the twin tendencies among nerd fans to a) assume everything news is going to fail, and b) to glorify one particular iteration of a character or franchise as the "One True Definitive Version" which all others will fail to live up to. These two themes more or less run through 95% of all nerdfan comments on all nerd-related properties in any medium.

Again the comments turn to Lynda Carter, and "fred flintstone" decides this must be known to the world:

adolescent fantasies? Dude she still embodies my fantasies now. Had a stiff one the whole time watching. Wished I was the one in her Lasso, I’d tell her the truth for damn sure!

Why would someone write that and post it? Did they, like, look at the comment before they hit the "submit" button and think "damn, this one is gonna be a game-changer, folks minds are gonna be fuckin' blown, bro-dawg". I hope so.

Don't think we've had any totally blatant racism yet (a raison d'etre of the true nerdfan), so allow me to post this comment chain. "allseingi" starts with:

With the exception of Batman, all those golden age DC characters are way past their prime and are jus not reverent.

Okay, a stupid point but nothing terrible. "Anonymous" decides to correct a spelling error:

Did you mean “relevant”

Fair enough, "allseeingi" probably did. But "Mel" needs to add:

Dude’s Asian.

HAHA RACISM IS SO FUNNY GUYS

Anyways, it goes on in that fashion for a while longer but since I'm only a third of the way through the comments (and I was judiciously skipping many) and I already want to hang myself, I'm stopping now. Other common comments include "Wonder Woman in a bikini!!!!" and more blathering about how unpatriotic the new costume is. Also included are healthy doses of "comic adaptations always suxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb;larggbsh" and approximately 99% of the comments are all virulently sexist. By my estimate there are about, say, five non-brain dead comments that actually discuss the relative merits of a Wonder Woman television show as-concept and whether having Kelly attached is a good idea.

Anyhow, it should be completely obvious that whatever pretensions to alternative culture nerds have the truth is that, a) they're completely terrified of female sexuality (particularly the notion that females could be in control of their own sexuality), b) they're also terrified of contemporary ideas of female independence, c) an ugly nationalistic and conventionally macho view of the nation-state runs deeply through nerd culture, and d) nerds fear and loathe change almost as much as they fear and loathe female autonomy.

This is why, despite being extremely nerdy in many ways, I usually want little or nothing to with nerd culture.

My Top 10 Live-Action Superhero Adaptations

2010-09-20T16:24:00.001-06:00

I watched Superman Returns last night, and had a short conversation about the wretched Superman IV: The Quest for Peace today, both of which prompted me to think: what are my top 10 favorite superhero flicks? For my purposes, what I mean by that is a live-action adaptation of a superhero(s) from comic books. I don't have hard and fast rules for what constitutes a superhero, but my instincts tend towards the conservative (one could theoretically categorize Scott Pilgrim as a superhero, for example, but I stick with the more traditional Batman/Superman type). Of course, I haven't seen every single superhero movie ever made, but I've seen a surprising number of them (even for superheroes I don't particularly like much). The following list is numbered, but the flicks are in no particular order. Anyways, here's my top 10:

1. Batman: The Movie (1966)

If you're some cynical cynic from Cynicstown, maybe you don't realize how great this movie is. But this flick is brilliant. It perfectly captures one particular side of comics and superheroes and mines that side with abandon. And it has staying power. Look at it this way: I was born in '85 and this movie was a staple of my childhood, and the childhoods of lots of my friends. Adam West kills it as the Bats. At least until 1989, this was the definitive version of Batman in the public consciousness, and it's still sort of the quintessential example of what most people think of when they think "comic books" (for good and ill). Love it.

2. Batman Begins (2005)

A, um, slightly different take on Batman than the previous entry. While Batman: The Movie tapped into the campy good-nature of Batman (and so much of the Silver Age), this one is really all about The Dark Knight. All seriousness and brooding, but snappier than the 1989 Tim Burton effort (which hasn't aged well, sadly). Christian Bale heads a pretty star-studded cast and everyone puts in performances which really inhabit the characters. This isn't the only way to do Batman, but it's a compelling one and a tone which is informed by some of the great work on Batman done in the 80s (in comics) and the 90s (on television).

3. The Dark Knight (2008)

The sequel to Batman Begins, continues this totally engrossing take on Bats with the addition of an anarchic (and highly praised and praiseworthy) Joker. Drawing heavily from beloved comic sources like The Killing Joke and The Long Halloween, this film was (deservedly) a massive hit. It'll be interesting to see where the franchise goes from here.

4. Superman: The Movie (1978)

Like the classic Batman flick from '66, this Supes movie was a cornerstone of my childhood (and many others my age). Christopher Reeve is Superman for so many people from across several generations. This film actually holds up really well, presenting a mix of taking-the-content-seriously and charming good-naturedness which is often missing from superhero flicks these days. This one had a star-studded cast too, with Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, Margot Kidder as Lois Lane and Marlon Brando as Jor-El. Unlike Batman, which has had a few successful live action iterations, Superman has never really again been presented outside of the template set forth by this film.

5. Superman II (1980)

I have a hard time considering the 1978 film without just sort of appending this sequel to it in my mind. A surprisingly strong sequel considering the sordid details of how we ended up with the finished product, this entry is a bit goofier than the '78 flick, but essentially the same vibe. These days, you can get the theatrical cut as well as the original, more serious "Richard Donner Cut" of the film. Neither is definitive over the other in my opinion, and both are highly enjoyable.

6. Superman Returns (2006)

This is a fascinating film in that it's a continuation of the original 1978 film franchise as opposed to a reboot (although it, thankfully, ignores Superman III and Superman IV and doesn't pay much mind to anything from Superman II which would get in the way of telling the story it wants to tell). Brandon Routh does a good job inhabiting the same character as Christopher Reeve's Superman without simply falling into parody and the rest of the cast is good - especially Kevin Spacey who is phenomenal as Lex Luthor. The story itself is suitably "mad plot for world domination" the love triangle Supes, Lois and the new beau is enjoyable. Despite the commercial and critical success, indications are that whatever the next Superman film is going to be, it will be a reboot. I understand doing that - it was a little bit of an odd making a sequel to a franchise that had been dormant for 19 years - but it was still a joy to revisit this version of Superman one last time.

7. Hellboy (2004)

Guillermo Del Toro's adaptation of Hellboy doesn't quite capture the brilliance of the source material (yet) but it's still one of the best superhero movies out there. Basically, Ron Perlman rules and while there's a bit of a by-the-numbers sensibility here, it still beats out most of the costumed big-screen competition.

8. Hellboy II: The Golden Army

While the first film was a well-built film, the sequel takes it to the next level. Here, del Toro really taps into the tone and feel of the comic source and presents a dark fantasy world unrivaled in superhero flicks. It's a beautiful movie to watch and the plot is tense and engaging. And Ron Perlman still rules.

9. Iron Man (2008)

2008 was a great year for superhero films, it seems. Robert Downey, Jr. is Tony Stark in this one, inhabiting the character perfectly. An essentially pitch-perfect film adaptation, this captures the playboy fun and adventure that can make the character so great. Plenty of nerd-bait, like the creation of S.H.I.E.L.D., and an excellent cameo at the end of the credits makes this a memorable entry.

10. Watchmen (2009)

A near-perfect adaptation of one of the greatest graphic novels of all-time. The great deconstruction of the superhero makes it to the big screen with much success.

Runner-Up: Spider-Man 2 (2004)

While the first Spider-Man film in the franchise was pretty good, it felt a bit flat. Here, the pace is brisker and the story better. I'm not a hardcore Spidey fan so I miss a lot of the fan gripes with this franchise, but I thought this was a highly enjoyable film and easily the best of the the three films made. I just don't dip into this franchise quite regularly enough for it to make my top 10.

The Guilty Pleasure: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

I was 5 when this came out, loved the cartoon, and so this was right in my wheelhouse. It actually does a reasonably admirable job striking a balance between the darker source comics and the, well, cartoonish kids cartoon. It's definitely trashy, but it's oddly satisfying and certainly hits my nostalgia buttons in the right spots.

Final Thoughts: Okay, if it wasn't obvious while reading the list, I'll admit that I'm clearly primarily a DC comics fan. The lone Marvel title in the top 10 probably gave it away. Other titles that some folks might include in their lists (The Hulk [Hell, I preferred the Ang Lee version to the newest one], Daredevil, X-Men) just don't resonate with me as much. I'm not making any claims about this list other than it's my Top 10 personal favorites. I wouldn't hesitate in recommending any of these movies, but I wouldn't make any claims about them becoming your favorites or nuthin.

This is also a list I created off the top of my head, so I may be forgetting something really good.

The other thing is: this list is clearly dominated by recent titles. If I had to expand this list out to 15 or 20 titles, nearly all the rest of the films would be pretty recent ones too. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple reasons for this: 1) there's been a definite adaptation renaissance in the last decade or so - more comic book titles (superhero and otherwise) are getting adapted to film than ever before, 2) I think the nature of superheroes and comics lend themselves to being "of their time" in a way that makes them particularly susceptible to aging poorly. Will all these flicks in my list last the test of time? Unlikely. I think Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film provides a good case study. Heaped with praise on release (I loved it as a kid), it helped redefine what a "comic book movie" could be to the general public and finally supplanted the Adam West Batman as the definitive one in the public imagination. But, well, I rewatched it recently and it comes off as pretty hacky and dull, without a lot of the charm of that 1966 version. Ten years on, and it felt like the "superhero genre" had left it in the dust.

All this said, I guess it's time to go watch my extended edition of Ghost Rider. *cough*

Livingblogging Cut the Crap

2010-06-10T15:45:00.003-06:00

Over at If Music Could Talk, we've been deep in the throes of EET Week, a time when we celebrate The Clash's Cut the Crap album, which is commonly considered one of music's finest meldings of form and function (where the function is to make you hate the fact you can hear and the form is the worst music imaginable).

Anyway, this evening some of the IMCT crew will be getting together to liveblog a listening of the album. You can catch all the action at 4 Pacific/7 Eastern/12 Limeyville. Check it:
EET Week: Liveblogging Cut the Crap

On Immigration, Prelude

2010-04-29T12:25:00.002-06:00

[As the title suggests, I hope to do a more in-depth post on this subject in the very near future. For now, allow me to transpose this comment I made in another venue, with some minor edits]

I was chatting with some friends the other day, in the wake of the Arizona immigration law which was Governor Brewer recently, and it lead to a discussion of attitudes towards immigrants. Particularly, one friend's girlfriend posited that immigrants (presumably illegal, but it's left unclear) were hurting our school system by overfilling it and not speaking English. Now, I have serious problems with this argument in a number of ways, and will hopefully address some of them in an upcoming post, but at the time I wanted to make it clear that my position was that if these problems exist, they're symptoms of a larger structural issue. Illegal immigration occurs not because people just love breaking the law, but because we're born into a structure of asymmetrical power. When discussing immigration, it borders on the dishonest not to pull back our discussion to that larger discussion. What follow is something of a rant I made. My plan is for a shortly upcoming post to offer a more deliberative take on the issue (while maintaining the moral positions made here, although probably dropping some of the spicy language):

Basically, if you're trying to immigrate here and you're not college educated with an employer willing to step up for you, you're fucked. And even then, you're probably fucked.

In that context, I find it grotesque when people complain about what villanious lawbreakers illegal immigrants are and, damned straight, I support the shit out of illegal immigration because it's about the only way most folks have of getting into this country and trying to do a little better for themselves and their families. Frankly, I'm rather sickened by people who are so murderously unfeeling that they'd rather some PLAY BY THE RULES (as if following the rules, in and of itself, in the alpha and the omega of virtuous behavior or ethical action) than try to make sure their child doesn't starve to death because the global elite decided to impose perverse economic laws on poor countries to increase their profits at the expense of the workers who actually, you know, do the work. It's sickening that we actively support this global inequity (and all of us living in this country do, as long as we buy pretty much anything from a multi-national corporation) and then have the GALL to demonize the people who bear the brunt of our lazy greed and are just trying to make their lives a little better.

In the interim between now and when we meet again, here are a few bits of reading which are informing how I'll be writing about this issue in the near future.

Additional Reading:

Reason Foundation (Of Reason Magazine fame) has a pretty good write-up of how immoral and backwards the system is (w/ a handy cartoon flowchard in .pdf form at the bottom of the page).
Antiwar.com has a couple articles on the issue of immigration and violence on the U.S.-Mexican border. Raimondo offers a somewhat surprisingly militaristic take while Gregory and Garris (co-signed with others of the AW staff) offer a rebuttal. My views are more consonant with the latter position, but both are worth reading.
Norman Grigg offers a truly excellent analysis of the Border Patrol and the long-term consequences of developing a "Constitution-Free Zone", both on the personal level and more overarching consequences.
Roderick Long offers a concise critique of some conservative thinkers' positions.
Jon Stewart and The Daily Show give their take, which is bleakly humorous and worth a watch.
Feministe provides a pretty good roundup of more articles and discussions on the topic, so rather than replicate that work I'll just link to them (a must-read site, in any case).
Rapper Swindoe has a fairly poignant music video out about crossing the border (illegally), and it's worth a watch.

Happy Record Store Day!

2010-04-17T07:00:00.000-06:00

Just wanted to give a quick shout-out for Record Store Day, which is a pretty cool worldwide event to promote independent record stores. Swing by your local indie record store (I'll be stopping by here) for exclusive vinyl release, free cds, goodies and so forth. You city slicker types should check to see if your local store is having any in-store appearances by musicians and bands and whatnot. From the event website:

The original idea for Record Store Day was conceived by Chris Brown, and was founded in 2007 by Eric Levin, Michael Kurtz, Carrie Colliton, Amy Dorfman, Don Van Cleave and Brian Poehner as a celebration of the unique culture surrounding over 700 independently owned record stores in the USA, and hundreds of similar stores internationally.

This is the one day that all of the independently owned record stores come together with artists to celebrate the art of music. Special vinyl and CD releases and various promotional products are made exclusively for the day and hundreds of artists in the United States and in various countries across the globe make special appearances and performances. Festivities include performances, cook-outs, body painting, meet & greets with artists, parades, djs spinning records and on and on. Metallica officially kicked off Record Store Day at Rasputin Music in San Francisco on April 19, 2008 and Record Store Day is now celebrated the third Saturday every April.

You can find a list of participating stores here.

Long live Rock, and all that.

Torchwood Review: 2x06 - Reset

2010-04-16T14:54:00.000-06:00

Review: Yikes, it's been almost a month since I've done any of these. Ah well, I guess it's partly because when episodes are solid-but-not-groundbreaking (as opposed to terrible or fantastic), discussing them becomes a little less interesting. Still, this is a pretty impressive episode - largely for the surprise ending. I won't give away anything here, but it's quite the shock the first time you see the episode. The rest of the episode is very competently done - and having Martha Jones on board for a few episodes is a real treat - but the particulars of the plot are largely unmemorable.

Final Verdict: This really accomplishes what the title of the episode suggests, which is to essentially reset the show and create some interesting new dynamics. While the plot itself is somewhat slight (although by no means bad), the (temporary) addition of Martha Jones and the startling ending profoundly chance the relationships all the characters have with each other, and create much more compelling show from this point on. While the show had gotten to a good place by now, from here on out it really takes it to the next level. Definitely a must-see episode.

Available On: Torchwood - The Complete Second Season

Honoring Our Troops

2010-03-27T23:09:00.000-06:00

Note: This was originally posted as part of an ongoing discussion in another venue, but thought it was worth cross-posting here. The intro is slightly edited to try to give a little more context, but is otherwise copied verbatim.

Earlier this month, the always provocative Glenn Greenwald published a searing indictment of the ruling political class' shift towards declaring Iraq a "success" and the various disgusting positions which that entails. I've been rolling Glenn's article around and getting, quite frankly, madder and madder. His update is why:

Several people argue in Comments that this effort to portray the invasion of Iraq as a good thing is motivated not only by a desire for self-cleansing on the part of those responsible, but also to enable future, similar wars to take place. I don't know whether that's the motive, but it's definitely the effect.

I mean, it's one thing to just try and cover your ass in some meaningless attempt to shine your shit into gold or whatever. But these are the real, terrible, consequences of the kind of PRAGMATIC SERIOUS attitudes that pervade the sickening elite of our country.

I used to say that I opposed the war but I at least wanted to "succeed" (whatever the fuck that means) now that we were in this horrible mess. But, you know what? Not any fucking more. Not as long as evil men like Friedman will be out there, pumping their fucking chests out with shrill screams for war and bloodshed and sending my friends off to die for no fucking reason other than the money and privilege of a few. The countries of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going to be what we want to them to be, no matter how many brown children we mutilate and kill, so propping up some sort of false "victory" is what's going to dishonor the dead.

All this talk of making sure sacrifices aren't in vain is exactly fucking right. And you know the best way we can make sure that our fallen soldiers' lives weren't taken in vain? Learn from this goddamned debacle and make sure we don't do anything like this ever again. That wouldn't be a "waste" or "dishonorable" or whatever else the red meat assholes like Friedman petulantly scream at us while they gleefully send young men and women off to die.

If Friedman were just trying to cover his own evil, dishonest ass I wouldn't fucking care, but the kind of shit he's advocating is unspeakably horrific. He's saying we shouldn't care what the costs are, we can just table those for future generations! The point - the real point - is that Thomas Friedman needs constant war. Constant, never ending conflict to satiate his bloodlust. And you know what? It's not going to be enough. It will never be enough. As long as he can justify any conflict, any at all, by saying we shouldn't bother with the costs in blood and lives so long as we strangle some idiotic definition of "victory" out of the proceedings, we will be perpetually at war. Killing people because guys like Friedman salivate at the thought of the misery and pain of others.

And that's the real disgrace to the memory of the dead. If Friedman gets his way, that's when all those people will have died in vain.

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edtion #10

2010-03-27T10:31:00.001-06:00

A Friendly Business Opportunity

2010-03-22T15:09:00.001-06:00

A note to my right wing friends who are currently putting up FB posts about armed revolution and civil disobedience in the wake of the passage of the Health Care bill: I will give $100 cash to the first person who either a) leads a successful armed rebellion against the United States, or b) is jailed in the attempt.

Also, I won't think any of you are hypocritical douches if you go back in time and give these same reactions to the passage of all the war legislation we've endured and the systemic destruction of our civil liberties.

Think about it. 100 bucks. And not being a douche. That's a two-fer.

Torchwood Review: 2x05 - Adam

2010-03-19T16:51:00.001-06:00

Review: Another sort of minor entry into the show, this one was reasonably engaging on first watch but felt a little dull on repeated viewings. On the plus side, each member of the team gets a chance to shine, with personality changes from the somewhat subtle to the radically altered. The story lacks a bit of tension simply because there only really seems like one tenable way for the story to be resolved. The bits about Jack's past are interesting, and build a bit on some other hints that have been dropped already this season.

Final verdict: A decent episode, but largely disposable. If you're a fan of the series at this point, you won't want to pass it up but it has no standout qualities to recommend it to newcomers.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete Second Season

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

2010-03-14T18:02:00.000-06:00

Omega - Hypnotoad by OmegaDubstep

Torchwood Review: 2x04 - Meat

2010-03-02T16:47:00.000-07:00

Review: This is usually not considered such a hot episode of the season, but I think it holds up rather well on repeated viewings. This is, of course, the episode where Rhys finds out about Torchwood. As a viewer, my general feeling is that it was about freakin' time. The deterioration of Gwen and Rhys' relationship had just been getting painful. the particulars of the story are rather mundane - the villains are basically the definition of small-time - although it's impossible to not feel pretty darned bad for the alien.

Final verdict: A nice little episode. I think Torchwood is usually better in its single-episode story format when it's taking on smaller stories like this. The major change in the character landscape make this a must see episode.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete Second Season

Torchwood Review: 2x03 - To the Last Man

2010-03-02T15:19:00.000-07:00

Review: Now we're talking! A great episode that combines an interesting sci-fi plot with a great character piece for Tosh and the guest of the week. The guest is quite likable and there's some obvious chemistry on screen which make the proceedings feel extremely natural. Some people find these predestination type stories too pat but I kinda like the way everything falls into place and as the little clues get answered it's pretty interesting. It's also pretty awesome to see an older iteration of Torchwood.

Final verdict: Definitely one of my preferred season two episodes. It's a bit low-key, but that adds to its charms and it's perhaps the best Tosh-centric episode of the entire series. I think anyone who enjoys good television would dig this.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete Second Season

Torchwood Review: 2x02 - Sleeper

2010-03-02T15:01:00.000-07:00

Review: Eh, a sort of season one-ish episode to my mind. A lot of big and interesting ideas that don't quite coalesce into a super engaging storyline. There's not a lot of dramatic tension because we know the alien plan is too big to really work and we also know the sleeper agent is pretty much hosed right from the start. A few decent moments, and I think the team works rather well together, but this is one of the weaker episodes of season 2.

Final verdict: Might as well watch it if it's on or you're going all the way through, but it feels slightly inconsequential. There are some hints that perhaps these will be recurring villains, but so far nothing here has been revisited. I might revise my opinion if we see a future episode tie back into this one.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete Second Season

Torchwood Review: 2x01 - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

2010-02-19T11:22:00.002-07:00

Review: Holy crap, what a difference a season make. An exciting season opener, with James Marsters as Captain John Hart, which lays the seeds of the overall plot threads of season two and provides excellent screen time for the entire Torchwood team. The plot itself is a fairly straightforward con game, although the exuberance brought to it from all the characters makes it delightful to watch and the revelations at the end of the episode provide a great sense of mystery going forward. The real beginning of must-see Torchwood.

Final verdict: As I said, this is must-see stuff. If you slogged your way through most/all of season one then the improvement in episode quality here will be immediately noticeable and you're likely to never look back. If you're just thinking of checking out Torchwood but don't want to start with the dodgy early stuff, this is a brilliant introduction to the show. Its minor flaws are more than made up for by the engaging acting and a few interesting turns of the story.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete Second Season

Torchwood Review: 1x13 - End of Days

2010-02-19T11:09:00.000-07:00

Review: Aaaaand the show, which seemed to have turned a corner a few episodes ago, manages to end the season on a major letdown. The first half of this episode is actually pretty good. A direct outgrowth of the end of the last episode, there's a well-done sense of mystery regarding what opening the rift has done to Cardiff and what dangers the team may be facing. Unfortunately, as the plot starts coming together it turns out to be something pretty lame.

Final verdict: A pretty mediocre story in the end, saved by the emotional catharsis the characters undergo. For all the dysfunctional team dynamics, this is where the resolution begins for the characters. So, definitely worth watching. Just don't let the promise of what the episode could have been get in the way of what it actually is.

Thoughts on Season 1: Well, a pretty variable season.The episodes don't actually start getting good until over halfway through, and even then most of them are still somewhat problematic. Still, RTD's skill which characters shines through here, making even the worst episodes at least somewhat interesting. While I can't recommend absorbing every second of the first season for most, if you have decided to try to go through the entire series, this first season is the first chapter of important character arcs for the Torchwood team.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x12 - Captain Jack Harkness

2010-02-19T10:54:00.000-07:00

Review: Awesome possum! The first real meaty Cap'n Jack story with a genuinely interesting time travel story and a nice little bit of Soap Opera between Cap'n Jack and, er, Captain Jack. A nice little showcase for Tosh too and an excellent example of Jack having a great rapport with another member of the Torchwood team (so, no "Jack and Gwen Show" this episode, not that I really have a problem with it). This episode did come off as a bit flakier the second time around, but it's still one of the most solid entries of the season.

Final verdict: One of the must-watch episodes of the season. Great bit of romance, cool time travel plot and a great setup for the season finale.If you can take the bit of soap opera hokyness in stride, this episode is a pleasure.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x11 - Combat

2010-02-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

Note: I got a little behind on my reviews this week, so I'll be catching up today with multiple reviews at once.

Review: Sort of a letdown after a string of strong entries. Although this is a reasonable character piece for Owen (two in a row!), the actual plot is way, way too derivative of Fight Club. The first time I watched this episode, it didn't seem so bad but the second time it came off much worse. The guest star is irritating as heck and there isn't any tension really successfully built up anywhere in the episode. So, eh.

Final verdict: Might as well catch it if you're running out the season, and it's still better than some of the earlier episodes. But, after some particularly strong stories this one comes off as pretty flat.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x10 - Out of Time

2010-02-15T23:54:00.001-07:00

Review: A nice character piece, although it never quite takes off (if you'll pardon the terrible, terrible joke). In terms of character growth, the best piece is really the Owen romantic subplot since it furthers the development of his character quite a bit. The Gwen subplot is okay, although it feels a tad pedestrian. The Jack story is probably the best in terms of telling the actual story of one of the guests of the week; it's both poignant and believable, really making you connect with the guest star.

I think the biggest problem is that the story tries to do too much. They would have been better off dropping of the subplots (Gwen and her charge, most likely) and fleshing out the other two parts of the story a bit. This is another story - like random shoes - which really just uses the sci-fi element of the show to springboard a more interesting story. While this is a fine effort - and of the best episodes of the first season - it's a style that show would get more comfortable with in season two.

Final verdict: Definitely worth watching, even if you're not a hardcore devotee to the show. Very nice character dramas all set in the classic characters-out-of-time plot. Sort of a reverse story to Doctor Who actually. Check it out.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x09 - Random Shoes

2010-02-12T19:27:00.000-07:00

Review: Pretty much hands down my favorite episode of the season. Reminiscent of a "Doctor Lite" episode of the parent show, this nifty whodunnit-type story is narrated by the recently-deceased guest star - a nerd who's pretty likable in spite of some of the characteristic "nerd cliches." The mystery of the story is actually extremely engaging and the narrator provides a unique perspective on the Torchwood team. The ending is superb and hits all the right (bittersweet) notes. Life affirming without overplaying its hand.

Final verdict: I've hesitated to say too much in the review, just because it's really an episode worth letting unfold on its own. This is simply must-watch television and stands as easily one of the best Torchwood episodes of any season. Watching it a second time, I was even more impressed. Nearly perfect.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x08 - They Keep Killing Suzie

2010-02-11T22:34:00.000-07:00

Review: This is what they call in the common vernacular "a turning point." Picking up on threads from the first episode of the series, this is the first episode of Torchwood which really (nearly) seamlessly blends the primary plot with the dramatic character stuff and presents it all as one package. We get the first hints of a story arc which will be touched on throughout the rest of the season and we get to see what Torchwood does to (some) people.

While this is a good story - and don't get me wrong, it is quite good - it's not perfect. I couldn't totally buy into the idea that Gwen would so quickly get on board with helping the woman who tried to kill her in episode one. Despite that, it was still an exciting story with a few interesting little twists and turns. The very ending of the episode is the first bit in the show which makes you feel like the series is capable of something deeper and more interesting than simply going around and killing sex aliens and redneck cannibals all the time.

Final verdict: A really, really solid episode. It isn't perfect, but from here on out the show (mostly) escapes its sub-Buffy beginnings. This is a good episode for the casual and hardcore alike. I just wish it didn't take until episode eight to get here.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x07 - Greeks Bearing Gifts

2010-02-10T23:32:00.000-07:00

Review: Another one I'm not totally sure how much I want to dissect. It's not really a bad episode (although Tosh's lesbian relationship comes off as a bit like spectacle, since there aren't any hints before or after this episode that she's bisexual), and does a reasonably job exploring some of the motivations and concerns which drive Tosh. The way that the alien-of-the-week manipulates Tosh every step of the way is mostly quite well done - and clever to use a mind-reading device to throw her off her guard - although I think it's fair to say that the view could see the big "reveal" about her character coming for a country mile (I'm not totally clear if it's supposed to be a surprise or what). So, the end feels like a little bit of a letdown, but it's not a bad journey to get there.

Again, as with most of Torchwood, the real strengths of this episode aren't in the alien-of-the-week particulars but in the interpersonal dramas which are unfolding in the series. If you focus on those and try not to hang your hat too much on the random alien, it makes for a mostly satisfying experience. Oh, and bonus points for showing the same alien species on The Sarah Jane Adventures. I live little in-universe continuity nods like that.

Final verdict: This is still definitely a season one episode, in that it's rather uneven with the characteristic "good ideas not fully executed" problem which plagues most of these first season episodes. That said, it's a good watch both for those watching the program casually or trying to catch every episode.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x06 - Countrycide

2010-02-09T23:32:00.002-07:00

Review: I won't lie, I kinda like this one. Despite generally being panned as one of the weakest episodes of the series, I can't help but take a certain delight in this Texas Chainsaw Massacre pastiche. It's one of the first episodes of the season which really gives each team member close to equal billing, and we see the start of an important (if terrible) relationship between Gwen and Owen begin. There's some fairly enjoyable banter between the team and it's just kinda nice to see them in a different environment than the hub and city. And ultimately there's just something I kinda like about cannibal hillbillies and their various trials and tribulations.

Final verdict: This ain't high art, it's not even close. But if you ever thought to yourself "Torchwood is pretty good, but you know who needs to get involved in it? John Carpenter" then this episode is for you. If you're willing to accept the episode for what it is, it can be great fun.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x05 - Small Worlds

2010-02-08T18:43:00.000-07:00

Review: Not a bad little episode, although it seems a bit silly upon repeated viewings. I like the sense that the episode gives of expanding the history and mythology of the world the show takes place in. It's also nice to see some more background on Jack. And the ending feels like something of a dry run for Children of Earth. The guest stars mostly come off as unlikeable or dumb or both, so it makes it tough to get too caught up in caring what happens to folks.

Final verdict: Another one of those "not bad if you catch it and random but no need to seek it out" episodes. That said, if you're watching in sequence, this will seem like something of a breath of fresh air after the last few episodes.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x04 - Cyberwoman

2010-02-07T11:26:00.000-07:00

Review: One of the more, uh, infamous episodes of the series; when I first watched it I shelved the show and wouldn't return to it until the friend who turned me onto the show in the first place (occasional poster and arch nemesis Gene Mayes) harassed me enough that I grudgingly picked it up again (glad I did, too). That said, after watching this episode a second time, it didn't come off quite so badly. I think there are a few reasons for this: 1) I better appreciated that in one scene there is a cyborg fighting a dinosaur, 2) this episode, more than any other on Torchwood, benefits from watching the parent program Doctor Who. I would highly recommend catching the relevant season 2 episodes of that show before catching this one, 3) As clumsy as it is, this is really ground zero of Ianto's live and loves on the show. So much of his character really starts here, and if you're a fan of Ianto (and who isn't?), you're gonna wanna see the first defining moment for his character.

All that said, the plot is still excuciatingly awful. Throughout it all, you pretty much know how it all has to end and there's really no proper sense of tension. Cap'n Jack going around talking about "executing people" is also some of the worst dialogue ever written in the Whoniverse (and I'm counting 1963-present). So, yeah.

Final verdict: It pains me to recommend this one, but I'm gonna have to bite the bullet and do it. There's important enough character development that watching this one early on will lead to rewarding payoffs down the road. Also, and I don't know if I can stress this enough, there is a fight between a cyborg and a dinosaur. Just remember that this is possibly the worst episode of the entire series, and once you get it done it's all uphill from here (even if there is a lot of uphill to climb).

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x03 - Ghost Machine

2010-02-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

Review: After the seriously lousy previous episode, this one comes up as something of a breath of fresh air. You see a neat little alien gadget, and the creepy and sometimes tragic visions they bring. There's also some playing around with the ideas of pre-destiny and free will and all that, as well as trying to entice the audience along into figuring out how the visions of the future are going to play out. We also have a few more scenes were Gwen is further integrating into Torchwood (she's loves to shoot guns, sweet). All that said, while this episode is reasonably interesting, it doesn't really explore any of the concepts it touches on enough to be a real winner of an episode. This is a common problem throughout the the first season.

Final verdict: It would have been a lot better if they'd taken one "angle" of the story and really hammered it home. Instead this is an episode of a few decent (if not particularly groundbreaking) ideas that don't go anywhere interspersed with scenes of Own acting kinda tortured. It's actually not that bad, and if you're watching the series in order you'll be glad you caught it, but for the casual viewer this isn't a must see. Not that it has to be avoided, tho, if you see it on repeat while channel surfing I'd say go for it.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x02 - Day One

2010-02-05T17:44:00.003-07:00

Review: Okay, after a pretty solid start we're looking forward to episode 2. And they decide to go with a... sex alien. Awesome. Okay, so I'm actually not against the sex alien story per se. My feeling is that every single series of this type (your X-Files and Buffys and such) get to have ONE sex alien/monster/creature episode for their entire run. Bold move for the Torchwood creative team to turn in that chip for episode two. So, yeah, sort of a bad way to get the series rolling.

The plot itself is mediocre - about as good as you'd hope a sex alien story to be without actually turning it into softcore porn (so, in other words, not that good). It could technically have been worse, I guess. There are a few interesting "team dynamic" moments and I think Eve Myles is already starting to shine in making her character so expressive. But this is all stretching it for compliments.

Final verdict: A terrible letdown after the solid first episode. I kind of can't believe I actually watched this twice. I'd only recommend this if you're really committed to watching every episode of the show.

Available on: Torchwood - The Complete First Season

Torchwood Review: 1x01 - Everything Changes

2010-02-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

Review: Not a bad way to start the series, certainly better than I remember from my first viewing (I think my memories were colored by some of the following episodes). I think the episode does a good job making the viewer share Gwen's sense of mystery as she steps into a new world. It's worth noting that when I first watched this series I hadn't seen any Doctor Who, but upon revisiting these episodes - after having watched the 2005-2010 era of Doctor Who - I can pick up more subtle (and not-so-subtle) references to the parent program, which is a nice bonus.

One thing worth mentioning is that I like how this episode essentially presented two narratives: Gwen (and the viewer) learning about Torchwood, aliens, etc. and then a second narrative which is essentally a whodunnit murder mystery. I actually like RTD's style of keeping the second strain of the show simmering on the backburner and then thrusting it to the foreground towards the end of the episode. It makes for an exciting ending and keeps the focus on the mystery of the organization, which I prefer to just introducing all this stuff and then having Gwen get down to business-as-usual detectiving (which would have been silly).

Final verdict: A nice start for the show, introducing most all of the basic elements which would define the first two seasons of Torchwood. I'd definitely recommend this episode to anyone interested in watching more of the series than just Children of Earth.

Available on: Torchwood: The Complete First Season

Why do Daleks like Apples?

2010-02-03T18:16:00.002-07:00

Because an apple a day keeps The Doctor away.

...aaaand this blog reaches a new low. Sorry folks.

12 Days of Christmas: Day Twelve

2009-12-25T09:00:00.000-07:00

Elvis Presley with Martina McBride - Blue Christmas

Merry Christmas!

12 Days of Christmas: Day Eleven

2009-12-24T09:00:00.000-07:00

Tom Waits - Silent Night/Christmas Card from a Hooker in Minneapolis

12 Days of Christmas: Day Ten

2009-12-23T09:00:00.003-07:00

Brenda Lee - Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree

12 Days of Christmas: Day Nine

2009-12-22T09:00:00.002-07:00

The Fleshtones - Hooray for Santy Claus

12 Days of Christmas: Day Eight

2009-12-21T09:00:00.005-07:00

The Go Go's - I'm Gonna Spend My Christmas with a Dalek

12 Days of Christmas: Day Seven

2009-12-20T09:00:00.000-07:00

The Pogues with Kirsty MacColl - Fairytale of New York

12 Days of Christmas: Day Six

2009-12-19T09:00:00.004-07:00

Johnny Cash - Christmas As I Knew It

12 Days of Christmas: Day Five

2009-12-18T09:00:00.003-07:00

Ramones - Merry Christmas (I Don't Wanna Fight Tonight)

12 Days of Christmas: Day Four

2009-12-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

Buck Owens and His Buckaroos - Santa Looked a Lot Like Daddy

12 Days of Christmas: Day Three

2009-12-16T09:00:00.000-07:00

Hank Thompson and the Brazos Valley Boys - It's Christmas Time Every Day in Alaska

12 Days of Christmas: Day Two

2009-12-15T09:00:00.003-07:00

Bob Dylan - Must Be Santa

12 Days of Christmas: Day One

2009-12-14T09:00:00.002-07:00

The Trashmen - Dancin' with Santa

Ozymandias

2009-11-02T22:11:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite sonnets, always worth a read:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

- Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818

Star Trek Fridays: Happy Halloween!

2009-10-31T14:57:00.000-06:00

For Halloween, we're gonna celebrate Star Trek stylee. While there have been a handful of "horror" themed episodes throughout the Trek franchise, season 2 of The Original Series featured a very obvious "Halloween episode." It's not one of the classics, but it's somewhat charming in its own way and features something unique for Star Trek - some very non-human looking aliens (tip: gotta wait until the end for that payoff). This episode can be so ludicrous it's fun, and not a bad way to get prepped for a night of Halloween fun:

The Original Series - 2x7 - Catspaw

Star Trek: The Original Series

(note: the lamers at CBS seem to have turned embedding off. Weak.)

Enjoy the episode and have a Happy Halloween!

R.I.P. Chuck Biscuits [EDIT: Glad You're Alive!]

2009-10-29T12:18:00.003-06:00

[EDIT: Turns out Chuck Biscuits is alive after all. Excellent news.]

One of of the most important figures in American Punk (and music in general) passed away last week. Chuck Biscuits was only 44. Some of his most important work was with bands like DOA, Black Flag, the Circle Jerks and Danzig. He also performed with such groups as Social Distortion and Run-D.M.C. To honor his memory, here's a video:

R.I.P. Chuck Biscuits...

and a bootleg of his studio recordings with Black Flag (to me, despite the fidelity issues, these are the greatest recordings Flag ever did). I only have them in 128kbps mp3s. If anyone has an upgrade, I'd be happy to replace them:

Download

Star Trek Fridays: Halloween Trek - The Pregame

2009-10-23T21:11:00.002-06:00

While I was hunting for, well, something else on YouTube I came across a couple videos tagged as Halloween Star Trek videos. They are, uh, Voyager montages set to a couple of popular songs (one a Halloween classic and one just an all around rock n roll classic). Now, admittedly, Voyager isn't what we would call "good," but I was nonetheless entertained by these videos. So, to get us warmed up for next week I present you with two Star Trek: Voyager Halloween music video montages:

Have a good weekend, all!

Saw Bob Dylan Last Night...

2009-10-22T15:44:00.001-06:00

...and thought I'd do a little write-up. This was originally written for a webforum I frequent, and I've tried to weed out anything too referential to that particular community, but apologies if I miss something. Without further ado:

-Appetizer-

To set the scene, it's vaguely worth noting that Denver had a snow storm coming through which added a bit of atmosphere as folks were arriving but also seemed to have made a lot of folks late. The show was pushed back a short while to let folks get filtered in (the place was still half empty when the show started but when the lights came on after the encore the arena was totally packed. It had been a sellout show, iirc). The short wait just got the energy flowing a bit more, as happens at concerts sometimes.

So, much to the shame of my punk rock roots I didn't get the general admission floor SRO tickets but, instead, managed to snag a set of seats to the right of the stage and, well, they may have been the best seats I've ever had at a concert. As it happens, Dylan's keyboard was directly facing me so Bob and I were looking directly at each other the entire night (barring when he hopped up front, in which case I was still getting an awesome views of the proceedings. With the stage layout I got to see every member of the band clearly too). So, anyways, that probably helped make the concert even more awesome.

So, as has been circulated from other concert goers on this tour, the band configuration this time around was excellent. I've honestly enjoyed pretty much every backing band I've seen Dylan with, but having Charlie Sexton on guitar helped out a lot - and the rest of the band is no joke either. Here's the full backing lineup for those curious:

Bob Dylan - guitar, keyboard, harp
Tony Garnier - bass
George Recile - drums
Stu Kimball - rhythm guitar
Charlie Sexton - lead guitar
Donnie Herron - banjo, pedal steel, lap steel, Trumpet

Overall, as I mentioned last night, Bob Dylan seemed really on target throughout the show. I know from firsthand experience that sometimes his interest seems to waver on songs on any given night. But he seemed really dialed in last night, belting out songs and dancing around on his scrawny chicken legs (Dylan's really short and kinda scraggly). When he was out from behind the keyboards he was pointing and gesturing all over the place and just seemed really into it.

-Main Course-

Okay, onto the set:

Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again - This was a great arrangement of the song and maybe opening with a really strong version of the classic helped set the tone for Dylan. I had to help some folks around me identify all of these earlier songs since they sound so damned different now.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on pedal steel, Charlie on telecaster)

It Ain't Me Babe - In terms of the "classics," I never had a major hard-on for this song. I like it well enough, and this was (as per usual) an eminently enjoyable arrangement, but it just doesn't turn my crank as much as some other songs from that period. Still, good energy from Bob and the band, and notable since it's the only time Dylan picked up the guitar for the show. Side note: it's been interesting to see Dylan's instrument usage change over the near-decade I've been catching him live. When I first saw him he played electric guitar the whole show, with a few acoustic songs thrown into the mix. The next few times he was closer to 50/50 on guitar and keyboards. The last time I saw him I don't recall him actually playing guitar at all, tho I bet he did a few times (I could look it up, but whatever). In all those previous shows I don't remember him playing harp nearly as much as he did last night, and with Charlie Sexton on guitar, I'm just as happy with Bob focusing on keyboard and harp anyways.
(Bob on guitar, Donnie on pedal steel, Stu on acoustic guitar, Charlie on white Gretsch)

Beyond Here Lies Nothin' - One of the best tracks on the new album. Since it was just released this year, it doesn't sound too dissimilar from the recorded version, except maybe a little more ragged, which is a quality I like.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on trumpet, Stu and Charlie on stratocasters)

Most Likely You Go Your Way (And I'll Go Mine) - Now here's one I really, really love and the rendition last night was rockin' and rollin'. He had the crowd boppin' on this song.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on lap steel, Stu on acoustic guitar, Charlie on stratocaster)

Cold Irons Bound - This was the performance of the night for me (although the next song is a close second). Bob's at the front playing harp and singing and the song just captures the essence of all the turmoil and emotion of today, which is actually a theme that ran throughout the evening (for anyone familiar with the songs, ya'll know what I mean). This song has aged well since it was first released.
(Bob center stage on harp, Donnie on lap steel, Stu on telecaster, Charlie on black Epiphone)

Workingman's Blues #2 - This follow up song to "Cold Irons Bound" struck as much of a chord as that song, and carried a lot of the same themes, emotionally. Even more potent than when it was released a few years ago, Bob's take on the song was equal parts defiance and eulogy. One of my favorite recent Dylan songs, with a tremenous live performance last night.
(Bob center stage on harp, Donnie on pedal steel, Stu on acoustic guitar, Charlie on stratocaster)

High Water (For Charley Patton) - Bob's back on the keyboards and things get a little more rockin' again. Still, the lyrics are pretty intense when you stop to listen to them. This must be one of Bob's favorite songs to play as it seems to appear in the vast majority of sets he's played since the song was released. That's fine since it's such a good number. I'd go so far as to say one of his all time best.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on banjo, Stu on acoustic guitar, Charlie on telecaster, Tony on standup bass)

Spirit on the Water - Another great song from Modern Times. Played a little faster with more rock & roll in the mix than the album version. I like both but this arrangement was more appropriate for the evening. A nice showcase for the versatility of the backing band, too.
(Bob on keyboard then center stage on harp, Donnie on pedal steel, Stu on telecaster, Charlie on stratocaster, Tony on standup bass)

Honest With Me - Another really solid track from Love and Theft. This was never one of my go-to songs on that album, but the rendition from Bob was beautiful and it's a darn well constructed piece of songery.
(Bob center stage on harp, Donnie on lap steel, Stu on stratocaster, Charlie on telecaster)

Man in the Long Black Coat - Ahhh, the "unusual" Dylan song choice which seems to crop up every show. In the past I've been treated to him playing cuts like "Song to Woody," "Under the Red Sky," and "In the Summertime" (the last one was, I believe, the first time he'd played it live. Or first tour anyways). I'm embarrassed to say it actually took me until the song was about 3/4 of the way through to remember which album it's from (Oh Mercy, one of his best efforts in the 80s). Another song which played into the rather somber theme (lyrically, anyways) of the evening. Also of note is the double whammy of Bob on keyboards and then playing some magnificent harp for this song.
(Bob on keyboard and harp, Donnie on lap steel, Stu on acoustic guitar, Charlie on telecaster)

Highway 61 Revisited - A fantastic rendition of this classic, people all around me were audibly commenting on how good this version was. I was worried this was going to be the beginning of Bob starting to fade and just perfunctorily going through the "classics" to finish out the show, but he stayed lively throughout. Fun stuff.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on lap steel, Stu on stratocaster, Charlie on telecaster)

When The Deal Goes Down - Another excellent choice from Modern Times. I'll use this opportunity to say that, overall, this crowd more than any other Bob show I've been to was really keyed into his new material. His new stuff was getting just as big applause as any of his old songs, and maybe even bigger in a few cases. That said, due to the heavy amount of new material, their was a rather small but irritatingly vocal minority of folks bitching about him "playing all these songs we've never heard before." Luckily, most of the complaints I heard were shot down by fellow concert goers, although some of the ill will seemed to take the form of shouting out requests for classic songs, which seems inappropriate to me. It's Bob fucking Dylan after all, not some shitty bar band. It'd be like going to see Jerry Lee Lewis or something and shouting requests at him because you weren't satisfied with the song selections. The dude's a goddamned legend, he can play what he wants.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on pedal steel, Stu on acoustic guitar, Charlie on white Gretsch, Tony on standup bass with bow)

Thunder On The Mountain - Holy crap, another Modern Times song! He must luuuuurve that album (I do too). A rollicking rendition, even more rockin' than the album take. Since their had been some particularly annoying bitching behind me about song selection right before and during this cut, I made sure I was on my feet whoopin' and hollerin' throughout (as were almost all the crowd)! This is also, apparently, the first song in a preconfigured end to the show and encore, so all these songs were playing like a well oiled machine.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on lap steel, Charlie on silver telecaaster)

Ballad Of A Thin Man - Oh hell yeah. One of my favorite tracks from 60s Dylan and it hasn't lost any of its nastiness or contempt. I've heard comments that Bob can be a bit out to lunch for this song, but he seemed full of piss and vinegar last night. I never get tired of this song. I wonder if people who were complaining about the lack of familiar material realize the irony of them then getting excited about hearing this song. Maybe they should go back and listen to some of those '66 bootlegs. Marvelous track to end the main set on, too.
(Bob center stage on harp, Donnie on lap steel, Stu and Charlie on telecasters)

(Encore)

Like A Rolling Stone - If (if!) there was one flat song of the night, this was it. Don't get me wrong, it was still fun as hell, but I'm afraid that even with the "new" sound, there's a problem of over-familiarity with this tune. Bob didn't seem to throw himself quite as much into this one as the previous songs, and I honestly wasn't quite as interested either. It was still good times, but not quite as excellent as all the other songs had been. Still, it's not even a "blemish" on the show so much as just a slight tick down in radness for a moment. In retrospect, he should have played something off Knocked Out Loaded just to really piss off the folks who wanted to hear a greatest hits show.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on pedal steel, Stu on Les Paul, Charlie on silver telecaster)

Jolene - Ha, the only other song from Together Through Life. A great one too. A lighter tone than a lot of the rest of the set had been. Fun. Oh, and not a Dolly Parton cover either.
(Bob on keyboard, Donnie on lap steel, Stu and Charlie on stratocasters, Tony on standup bass)

All Along the Watchtower - He closes with this one a lot, I think. Not quite as industrial sounding as when I saw him in Lincoln, but with Charlie Sexton the guitarwork was phenomenal. Dylan-covering-Hendrix-covering-Dylan, as they say. A nice, raucous song to end the show with. Everyone seemed to enjoy it.

-Dessert-

And that was the end. At the moment the lights came on the evening had felt too short, but he played for about two hours. Time just flies when you're having fun, I guess. I had been saving some cash for souvenirs, so I picked up a t-shirt and event poster and called it a night. I'd say the vast majority of the crowd had been thoroughly pleased with the show, and I was actually close enough to the stage and with a good enough view of everything that it looked to me that even Bob had a satisfied expression on his face as he and the band were exiting.

So, yeah, maybe this was even better than the Lincoln, NE show. What it lacked in crowd mayhem it made up for in spades by being the most consistently excellent Dylan performance I have been treated to yet. I'll be remembering this one for the rest of my life, I think.

Further Reading:
Bob Links - 10/21/09 Set List
BobDylan.com - Concert Page
Denver Post/Reverb Concert Review

(A Little) On Gay Rights

2009-10-19T23:01:00.004-06:00

Sorry for the lack of updates, life has been interfering a bit so I haven't been posting. Anyways, just wanted to point out a little tidbit that Gene brought to my attention:

In March, American anti-gay activists traveled to Uganda for a conference that pledged to “wipe out” homosexuality. Seven months later, a draconian bill has been introduced that pledges to make good on this threat. The “Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009” is so severe that it is designed to shred the spirit and suffocate the soul of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Ugandans. If it passes, Uganda will become a predator state that actively hunts down GLBT people to destroy them.

Uganda already punished gay intimacy with life in prison. But, apparently that was not harsh enough, with this bill penalizing anyone who “attempts to commit the offence” with up to seven years in jail. Additionally, a person charged will be forced to undergo an invasive medical examination to determine their HIV status. If the detainees are found to be HIV+, they may be executed.

This barbaric legislation stifles free speech by threatening anyone who is accused of “promoting” homosexuality with five to seven year prison sentences. Snitching on gay friends and family members is strongly encouraged because “failure to disclose the ‘offence’ within 24 hours of knowledge makes somebody liable to a fine or imprisonment of up to three years.”

Hmmm... terrible stuff, obviously. Locally, I think the biggest thing to take away from this is that for folks who involve themselves in anti-gay coalitions these are the consequences of your actions. Your money, the power you give to those in and out of office who perpetuate the anti-gay agenda, the rhetoric, the contemptuous religious bigotry, all of it. Maybe most folks just think of it as denying their fellow human being a few rights here and there, but the beast they help create isn't content to simply cease at some arbitrary line of "reasonable repression."

The sad truth is that this is a common tactic for evangelical powers like The Fellowship: harness in-state contempt of unprotected populations or hot button issues, amass wealth and power from the outraged citizenry, and then export that wealth and power to exact an even more hardline policy in other countries around the world. It's not just GLBT issues, evangelical churches having been using this tactic successfully for years in their fight against sexual education and their fight against controlling the spread of AIDs (aided by the U.S. government in this case).

The causes we support and the institutions we ally with have consequences. Global consequences that can mean life or death for many, many people.

Star Trek Fridays: The New Trek and Nerd Insularity

2009-09-25T15:17:00.000-06:00

Okay, instead of another classic TOS episode, I wanted to post one of my favorite recent gags from The Onion:

I still crack up every time I watch it. Besides being quite hilarious, it also hits the mark pretty well. Now, I'm a pretty unabashed nerd and I love Star Trek with pretty much every fiber of my being. But, I think this Onion piece pretty well captured the ridiculousness of some of the opposition to the new flick. Now, discussion of nerd conflict and insularity in general is pretty tired, and even moreso when it's an attack or defense of the Star Trek franchise (and especially the new flick), so I won't get into it. Any quick Google search can take you into the thick of the horrors that such a discussion entails, so I'll just leave well enough alone.

Anyways, hope that made you chuckle and have a great weekend!

Human Sexual Response - Fig. 14

2009-09-25T15:11:00.002-06:00

I dug this one out of the archives to rip and upload for general enjoyment this weekend. Boston's very own Human Sexual Response and their debut album, Fig. 14. These guys had some controversy with playing an explicit song on television or something (which you can read about at the Wiki article), but I'm mostly familiar with them since members of the band later played with guys like Bob Mould and Frank Black. So, that's pretty cool.

Anyways, this particular album is long out of print, and even the band compilation which collected this album along with other cuts from the group is longer being manufactures (and used copies don't appear to be cheap), so for anyone who doesn't wanna drop lots of cash money on out of print cds, I just ripped a copy of this excellent 1980 New Wave/Post-Punk release for your listening pleasure (and mine). You have two flavors to choose from:

FLAC (Level 8)
or
MP3 (-0 VBR)

Enjoy!

On Atheism & the Public Sphere

2009-09-19T14:01:00.006-06:00

Not that there's a shortage of discussion on this subject, but occasionally (well, okay, regularly) I'm reminded that I'm part of pretty disliked minority in America - the atheist. Why do I say this is a disliked group? Well... let's start with the opinion some have that atheists aren't fully human (upshot: we're probably actually robots). I'm going to go through a few recent articles and studies which, unfortunately, mostly speak for themselves.

1. Intolerance for atheists in the United States is strong. In a recent study, it was found that an astonishing 61% of Americans believe "moving away from God" is at the root of our social ills. 31% of this country would be characterized as "Religious Traditionalists," and of that group, over 40% favor denying non-believers political rights. James Gibson, the author of the study, warns that these findings suggest that atheist would do well to reconsider revealing their lack of belief in the public sphere.*

*This is especially insane when we consider some of the United States' demographics. This YouTube video is actually pretty illustrative here:

This, unfortunately, jives with other information we already know (for example: that the American electorate would never vote for an atheist as president). In some states, it's actually technically illegal for an atheist to hold public office (despite a 1961 Supreme Court ruling declaring such requirements unconstitutional).

I don't want to overstate the case and claim that, as a nonbeliever, I'm about to be rounded up and put into a labor camp or something, but for a lot of Americans tolerance of non-belief isn't even in the realm of possibilities - outright hostility is the norm. And even for those that don't actually advocate taking away my rights (such as they are), a strong majority of Americans think that those that think as I do are the primary cause of America's social problems. Which brings us to my next point.

2. Atheists are blamed for pretty much anything. Don't think that's true? Well, apparently atheists are responsible for global warming. Also, teaching evolution in schools leads to eugenics, abortion and racism. Advocating for godless evolution is so bad that concerted efforts have to be made to keep a film about Charles Darwin from premiering in the United States (never mind that 1 in 3 Americans don't understand Darwin's link to evolution anyways). These are just a few recent examples in a culture in which the majority believes that atheists are at the root of our social problems. So, in a culture where people advocate taking your rights away and blame you for eugenics, what can an atheist do?

3. Atheists are usually told to shut up and not speak their mind. In the study discussed in point #1, the conclusion reached was that atheists need to be very, very careful with who they reveal their non-beliefs to. This is a rather kinder and more sympathetic version of a mantra that seems to be all over the popular discussion of the issue: that atheists need to pipe down. Without getting into the real fringy stuff, a fairly mainstream and non-evangelic type complains about the "aggressive" and "tedious" New Atheists represented by Richard Dawkins et al. Of course, this is an example of the position that most in Western society subscribe to: that evangelizing on behalf of religion is acceptable in the public sphere while advocating against religion in the public sphere is still taboo. And let's not make any mistake here: this isn't about railing against anyone's beliefs in the private sphere. By definition, if your beliefs are truly relegated to that realm then no one would have any idea what they are. No, if your religion is affixed to your sleeve and and you bring it into the realm of open discourse then it is absolutely a a valid subject of critique. As an atheist, I have never been afforded the courtesy (one that I don't want anyways, as I'm comfortable defending my position from so-called critiques) of immunity from public criticism. No attempt to respect my positions or comfort level in the public sphere has ever been afforded and, quite frankly, it shouldn't be. Once a position is in the realm of the public, the public has a right to interact and dissect that opinion.

The real offense these New Atheists commit isn't a "tedious" position, but instead daring to challenge the accepted social order of what constitutes valid public discussion. For those claiming that this is a uniquely American problem, look at the UN's Anti-Blasphemy Resolution to see how pervasive the idea is that religious belief deserves special protection from criticism in the public sphere. While some countries are more comfortable with the idea of criticizing particular religious institutions, it is rare that you find open discourse critical of religious belief itself. Even in secularized Western Europe (who are so enlightened they tire of uppity atheists from America and seek to repress religious freedoms in public), the notion that no one has a right to be critical of another's personally held beliefs seems to hold sway. I would, again, argue that whatever beliefs enter the public sphere are open grounds for critique (merciless critique, if necessary). By definition (and I can't stress this enough, hence repeating this point several times), if we know what one's beliefs are, they have entered the public sphere.

As a side note, I would argue that (Western) Europe has dealt with religion exactly backwards: using state power to curtail freedoms while at the same time discouraging open discourse. This manages to combine the worst of intolerance for public discourse with the heavy handedness of institutionally-driven "solutions." So, kudos on that one Europe.

No, my concerns with how people treat atheism is twofold: a) while debate and critique is welcome (as I'm pretty sure I'm in the right anyways), disingenuous and anti-intellectual rhetoric seems to be the normal response as opposed to rigorous, logical opposition; and, b) the power dynamic is slanted such that criticism of atheism is normalized and accepted while the opposite is discouraged. Paul Fidalgo is helpful here, illustrating the climate that we live in:

Truly? Not only do we not have the right to criticize people's claims about the nature of existence or their treatment of human beings under the auspices of revealed dogmas, but even a hero of the fact-loving left is telling us that we can't even think that someone is off their rocker if they believe in reincarnation, the societal benefits of genital mutilation, transubstantiation, winged horses, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Maddow almost certainly did not intend her remark to be taken to the lengths to which I am now pushing it, but it remains indicative of a mindset that places beliefs that deal in the supernatural as off-limits to anything but the most neutered analysis.

and

[...] I feel there is a soft self-censorship implied here that is indicative of my larger complaint. (I don't mean the following as a beating-up on Beers any more than I mean to beat up on Maddow, which is precisely not at all.) Because I think it is about proving people wrong. Otherwise, are we as nonbelievers, rationalists, and secularists not simply sitting in a circle, merely agreeing with each other over coffee and bagels? "Challenging others" is an important and noble goal, but if we have ruled out persuasion, what is the purpose of challenging beliefs? To what end?

Somewhat dubious usage of the term "political correctness" towards the beginning of the article aside (a post for another day), the entire article does an excellent job explaining the problem the sensitivity towards "offense" that atheists have to deal with in public discourse, and the lack of allies from anywhere when it comes to combating this attitude.

So, in the end, we're left with a few realities and goals. First, that atheists are considered wretched scum and villainy here in the United States, and the cause of social decay in general as well as global warming, racisim, and anything else you can think of. Second, the reality of this climate is that we're probably safer to speak out against religious belief little and communicate our own stances even less. Third, that there is a pervasive stance among most political stripes that, while discussion and evangelizing on the behalf of religious belief is tolerated and even encouraged in the public sphere, the same allowance is not afforded for non-belief. Fourth, if the public sphere is to afford religion and religious belief its spot outside of the private, then atheism deserves the same courtesy. To do otherwise would negate the point of talking about atheism, which is to encourage a commitment to rationality in the public sphere. If atheists are not "allowed" this, if they are ridiculed as coarse and tedious when they attempt to seize the same rights and privileges that the religious are afforded, then the point of public discourse is lost, in favor of some mealy-mouthed commitment to shielding others from offense and a disingenuous pseudo-tolerance for belief.

To close, for my own amusement, I'll leave on the delightful insanity of Victoria Jackson:

If that doesn’t reek of Daniel 3:6 and Revelation 13:15 I don’t know what does!

Communists do not allow Bibles. When I was a child, my Dad was writing a check to an organization that smuggled Bibles into Russia. I said, “Why do they have to sneak Bibles?” Dad said, “They’re Communist.”

Atheists do not like Bibles.

All decisions and most political issues all come down to whether you are FOR GOD or AGAINST GOD.

The reason Liberals-Communists-Atheists don’t like Bibles is because they do not want the competition. “No man can serve two masters…” Matthew 6:24 You cannot worship God and the State. You must choose one.

Remember: The current social climate holds that it would be wrong for us to criticize these beliefs, since it might make Victoria Jackson feel uncomfortable.

Further Reading:

-Made by Mammals (for the groovy graphic)
-Research on Political Tolerance "Ominous" for Atheist Americans by Paul Fidalgo
-...Obviously by Ricky Gervais

For a Lot More Further Reading:

-The Secular Web Library
-Historical Writings @ Positive Atheism
-Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan Barker*
-Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett*
-Freethought Radio @ Freedom From Religion Foundation*

Addendum: Looking over this post (which I worked on in a few different sittings), my intent definitely changed from the beginning of the post to the end. Originally, I mostly just wanted to complain about how atheists are treated in America, but by the end I think I hit upon a more interesting - but interconnected issue - conduct in the Public Sphere. While it's obviously all tied together, I think that perhaps breaking out a public versus private sphere discussion would be fruitful for a future post. Just a thought.

*Addendum II: I mostly included free articles or online libraries for further reading, but thanks to Hayden for suggesting these books for additional reading. I've read the latter (which is excellent), and will definitely be checking out the former. So, if y'all have any other books or articles that you would recommend, let me know and I'll add them here.

Star Trek Fridays: The Trouble with Environmentalism

2009-09-18T16:20:00.000-06:00

Well, not really trouble for me, but apparently it was for Paramount when "The Trouble with Tribbles" was being made. Originally, writer David Gerrold was trying to craft a story on ecological devastation caused by removing a critter from its natural habitat. At it went through rewrites, the story became about a whodunnit plot and the devastation the tribbles represented took a back seat to a comedy story. Now, I'm not complaining: "The Trouble with Tribbles" is one of the best Star Trek episodes of all time. But, it's worth keeping in the back of your mind where the story originally came from as you're watching. And since it's turning into kind of a crappy day weather-wise around these parts, what could be better than battening the hatches and watching this classic episode of Star Trek?

TOS, 2x14: The Trouble with Tribbles

Not much more to say, today. Environmental politics is an area you can probably expect a post from me on in the future, but for now just enjoy the weekend!

Iggy and the Stooges - Raw Power [Original Mix]

2009-09-16T14:47:00.006-06:00

Howdy all,

Taking a short break from the political to bring a music download. For those not in the know, Iggy Pop is one of my favorite musicians and his landmark third album with The Stooges, Raw Power, is generally considered the blueprint for Punk Rock. Released in 1973, it anticipated all the fury and anger that would come with Punk in the mid-70's.

Anyways, the album has sort of a storied history in terms of mixing. Originally, Iggy set about to mix the album (some of these leaked early mixes are available as the album Rough Power), but David Bowie ended up taking over the project and did the final mixes of the album that Columbia ended up pressing. Many, Iggy Pop among them, were dissatisfied with this mix and talks of a remix which would reclaim the "real" Raw Power continued for years. In 1997, Columbia was planning on a remix and reissue of the album and asked Iggy Pop to handle the new mix. He did and, well, the results were - at best - mixed.*

*GET IT?!

The new album, as Iggy himself proudly proclaims, is mixed entirely in the red which creates one horrible block on the audio spectrum. You can see a pretty good demonstration of the results of the new mix of Raw Power here. Needless to say, the final result was a really, really loud album that totally cut away all the nuance of the original release and led to lots of digital distortion. Even I, not exactly an audiophile, noticed.

But here is the tragedy of this woeful tale: with the remix released the original Bowie mix went out of print. Alas for those interested in something that sounds good, not just loud. Luckily, after close to a decade Columbia repressed the original mix of the album on vinyl and (with the Columbia pressing out of print), a Sundazed pressing (they had already reissued the first two Stooges albums on vinyl) followed in 2008.

So, ladies and gentlemen, here is my own rip of the original mix of Raw Power from the Sundazed reissue, made available since - as of this post - the only version of the album available on compact disc or digitally is still the 1997 Iggy Pop mix.

EDIT: Downloads removed. See latest update for more.

EDIT (10/19/09): It's been brought to my attention that the FLAC and MP3 links are down. They seem to have been removed from my Mediafire account, possibly by me accidentally (I was doing some housecleaning recently). In any case, I no longer have the FLAC files handy but I re-upped the MP3 album onto a different file hosting site, so hopefully this will work for a while.

EDIT (04/13/10): When I posted this rip, the original mix of this album wasn't circulating readily on blogs or public torrent sites and wasn't legally available in digital form. As of this week, the original mix of Raw Power has been reissued on CD and from iTunes. I highly recommend everyone purchasing a legitimate copy of this classic album, either on the previously mentioned formats or the still-available Sundazed vinyl.

RIP Jim Carroll

2009-09-13T20:07:00.000-06:00

Jim Carroll, one of the great punk poets, passed away last Friday at the age of 60.

These videos speak for themselves:

RIP.

A Note from the Management

2009-09-12T11:46:00.000-06:00

I suppose I should have mentioned that my good friend Gene has been added to the roster of contributors here. Well, he has, and the post below is his. There's no set schedule or distribution of duties or anything like that, I just wanted to provide him a place to post whatever he feels like that might not fit into his own quite excellent music blog.

So, yeah, welcome aboard Gene!

Happiness is a Warm Gun

2009-09-12T10:09:00.008-06:00

Hello, I'm Gene, and I've been invited to blog here by your friendly blogmaster Kevin. I'm an anarchist (I sometimes identify as voluntaryist or mutualist so as not to frighten the layman) of the left-libertarian persuasion, so I combine libertarian or market anarchist analysis with more traditionally left-wing concerns. I'm a former Marxist and former anarcho-communist, so I'm also kind of an outsider to typical libertarian culture. I take much of my political inspiration from the orientation represented at the Center for a Stateless Society, but I also draw on other sources. My philosophical tastes run toward Buber, Siddhartha, Chuang Tzu, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger, so you won't see me using the self-ownership axiom nor do I only engage in strict deontic arguments. I'm in favor of individualist anarchists and social anarchists working together and exchanging views. While I do exclude certain anarcho-capitalists as allies (due to racism, monarchism, or other tendencies that cut against the grain of anarchism), I think, contra Iain McKay's Anarchist FAQ, that market anarchism is just as legitimate an approach to anarchy as anarcho-communism.

Allons-y!

The following thoughts about gun control and libertarian gun culture were brought on by discussion about this link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

From the article:

But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick. The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says. "There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there, where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?'"

One might also wonder: how many guns does a private citizen need?

So how do we respond to the question of private ownership of weapons? We can talk of reducing aggregate violence in society, but there are two kinds of violence, private and state, where state use of violence is always presumed legitimate. Importantly, though, because state violence is seen as legitimate, it is moreover used to suppress private violence. People define state violence out of aggregate violence. So when it comes to gun ownership, advocates of gun control believe in using state force (violence and threat of violence) to reduce aggregate violence. The assumption is that guns in private hands are more apt to be used in an immoral way.

My problems here are that

state violence is by far the more routine of the two by virtue of its very acceptability in statist society,
in gun control you rarely see a concurrent move to decommission the state—even if we concede legitimacy to police and military gun ownership, if civilians are totally disarmed, why should the police remain thus armed so heavily?
using the more routine form of violence to suppress the other is itself a routine moral calculation that I do not believe is seriously questioned,
that moral calculation ought to be questioned in light of the history of the state, especially in the 20th century where the state acquired a much greater ability to apply violence to such a degree that it absolutely dwarfs the private capacity for violence, and where concomitantly the state has engaged in the worst atrocities in human history.

The combined result of an increase in state and individual amassing of weapons may be the same—the valorization of violence in society and the perpetuation of the Hobbesian culture of fear—but I don't think each element, taken on its own, implies the same result. Furthermore, I question whether reducing private capacity for violence by means of state violence entails the result (reduced aggregate violence) desired if one includes state violence as part of aggregate violence in light of the four points I mention above.

At the same time, I question the libertarian gun culture. For the layman, libertarianism and gun ownership are rather synonymous. Yet while valorizing guns we still talk of peaceful association, voluntary order, and mutual aid. Why emphasize guns at all and not those places where we differ most strongly from the state? Yes, it's possible that they may provide a check against state encroachment, but as time passes and the United States government grows more and more powerful domestically while not totally disarming the populace, I begin to think this an unwarranted assumption. The fact is, the state has a far greater capacity for violence—insurrection would not accomplish much. Justin Raimondo recently wrote an article on this very subject:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/09/03/guns-and-roses/

The irony of this supposedly “radical” tendency is that they don’t take their own rhetoric all that seriously. On the one hand, we are told that the State is evil, a vicious monster capable of the most heinous crimes imaginable—and yet the lightness with which they take this threat tells a different story. They don’t really believe the State is going to retaliate, at least not in a way that will cause them harm any more serious than spending the night in jail. They really believe they can stand up to the Leviathan, that they can “go Galt,” as they put it, and withdraw from “the system.”

The utopianism and revolutionism of the FSP-ers are inextricably intertwined: Both underscore the essential naivete of a strategy that underplays the real power and evil of the State apparatus they disdain. Such a mistake could be fatal to those who make it, and surely fatal to the libertarian movement if it should ever become widespread.

The power grab has continued unabated and gun ownership has not stopped it. The cool response by the government to these libertarian stunts is not because the government fears such people. Sure, they've been put on the watchlist—any growing anti-authoritarian tendency is of concern to the state—but not as a threat to power itself. The most they fear is assassination. While that does have disrupting effects, there are mechanisms in place to keep the state functioning. No prior instance of political assassination in the United States, even of Presidents, has resulted in the toppling of the government. You can't assassinate a structure. You can't assassinate a state of mind. That's just what the state is—a philosophical-psychological condition. It retains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory, but that monopoly and its legitimacy are not maintained by force but by acquiescence. As Étienne de La Boétie observed, a king is just another man if he is not obeyed.

What purpose does the emphasis on guns in libertarianism serve? For many, I suspect, it's to maintain a rebellious aspect. It's about image, just as it is with the Marxist who raises a gun in defiance. There's still more to the issue, though. I grant the legitimacy of self-defense and deny any duty to obey the state whether it comes to surrendering weapons or filling out a census. Yet I doubt the idea that gun ownership has provided any check on the state—in the age of the neutron bomb, the bunker buster, and the multiple kill vehicle, what can a rifle do? Even if you have a hundred individuals like Simo Häyhä, the state has shown no compunction against using extreme force to destroy an enemy. Besides the implausible idea of a check on the state, gun proponents often speak of defense against other individuals. Again, I grant the legitimacy of self-defense, but are we not the group promoting the idea that society (as separate from the state) is a predominately peaceful affair of spontaneously ordered cooperation? I understand keeping a weapon for defense against home invasion—that's an individual's right, no question—but to carry guns full time? Where is the faith in peaceful spontaneous order there?

Furthermore, the state itself is sustained by a fear of violence. Much of the justification of the state for most people rests on implicit or explicit Hobbesianism (by that I mean the idea that in a state of nature we naturally war against each other rather than cooperate). The state creates a perceived state of emergency such that without it, all would go to hell. Yet this immediately raises the prospect of the state's penetration into society. The state cannot be everywhere at once, even if we want it to be, so if we are naturally more rapacious than not, why should we relinquish our fear? Sure, it might be better with than without, a statist might think, but we're still basically in a condition of emergency. The thin layer of civilization provided by the state isn't ever-present and moreover not inherently stable. Also, the state often promotes the idea of its powerlessness as a ploy for gaining more power. Rather than reducing fear and thus the amount of violent response in society, the state increases it intentionally as a means of legitimization and garnering of extra power (for a case study, see the Patriot Act). I believe some libertarians implicitly buy into this Hobbesian paranoia and even contribute to it.

Well, enough kvetching, you might say, what do you propose instead? Well, I believe we must build the new society in the shell of the old as the Wobbly slogan goes. Concentrate not on violently confronting the state, but on avoiding it. Whether through countereconomics as recommended by agorism or through the program suggested by Kevin Carson or both, we need to build our anarchist society now. We can start by providing mutual aid and work our way up to more difficult tasks. We can also treat one another in a more anarchistic way, eschewing coercion and hierarchy and promoting in Buber's terms an I-Thou relationship. Yet still we must confront the state somehow. What means are available to us? I believe the time of the gun as a check on power has passed, and the time when it would be useful in resistance is not yet here—and even if it were, such violence is undesirable. Since the state rests on fear and on acquiescence, we must attack it there, first by combating Hobbesian paranoia and the culture of fear by emphasizing free association and spontaneous order rather than violence, and secondly by means of nonviolent resistance—satyagraha. For the latter, I direct the reader to this superb essay in two parts by Carl Watner, "Without Firing A Single Shot":

http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/withoutfiringashot.php
http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/withoutfiringashot2.php

(This article, like all those on Complete Control, may be subject to further editing for clarity. Fnord.)

ADDENDUM: I should also note that even though I believe self-defense is legitimate, I believe it to be tightly constrained by proportionality. For this reason I completely reject the flagpole scenario of Walter Block and other libertarians of that stripe. I also think that nonviolence is often advised even in cases where self-defense is permitted. For that reason I sometimes refer to myself as a pacifist, though not an absolutist one.

Star Trek Fridays: A Taste of Biopower

2009-09-11T14:46:00.002-06:00

I'm gonna try out a new feature here at Complete Control: Star Trek Fridays. Every Friday, I'll post some kind of Star Trek related thing. It may just be a link to a good episode or clip on YouTube, or some tidbit about Star Trek in pop culture or the sciences or whatever. That said, I definitely have an in-depth post on Star Trek and anarchy coming down the pipe, so that should surface one of these days. But, hey, let's get it started by watching a favorite episode of mine from the Original Series:

TOS, 1x23, A Taste of Armageddon

Okay, well, in some ways this isn't what we'd call a "great" episode in the classic sense, mostly because some of the technological concepts are a bit on the crazy side, even for Star Trek. But I think as a study in the power of the state it's somewhat informative. Here we have two civilizations with no outward show of punitive force to keep people in line (literally in line in this case, standing in lines to be murdered by their government), but they enact policies hostile to life under the guise of humanitarianism and the pursuit of making some live. With the kind of technology techniques at the disposal of the alien race in this episode, it functions as an excellent example of Foucault's biopower. And there's more than a whiff of Huxley here too, with the controlling nature of the state not found in 2-minute hates but in the pursuit of empty luxury and stability.

A pretty cool episode, I think.

On State Control

2009-09-10T22:37:00.010-06:00

So, this is (slightly) old news but I think it's worth bringing up here. In the United Kingdom, the government is planning on spying on families with 24-hour surveillance to ensure that they're raising their kids appropriately. This is - to borrow and paraphrase a friend's observation - a sort of amalgamation of Orwell, Huxley and Foucault. The government will also be creating their own private army of inspectors to carry out random inspections of homes under this program. Jesus.

Okay, it's pretty obvious how I feel about this sort of state action - it's fairly appalling. Even people a lot more sympathetic to the necessity of the state to "keep the rabble in line" (as they say) should be fairly disconcerted with these latest actions. And, well, some are. But not nearly enough people are. There should be uniform outrage over these kinds of government programs and - granted, I don't live in the country - I'm not getting a sense of it.

Look, it sounds like the people under the jurisdiction of this surveillance program are pretty lousy parents. I don't pretend to know or understand every single factor that went into why there are people doing such a poor job raising their children that it would lead to a general sense that the state SHOULD be intervening. I will just say that, as part of the human condition, folks generally tend to take advantage of opportunities put in place for them. In this case, the pervasive welfare apparatus of the U.K. incentivizes people to not work and collect benefits through state programs. I don't blame the people for doing this - it's an utterly rational response to a system designed to force individuals to become dependent on the state for their lives. So, we marginalize the poor (through regressive laws that punish certain behaviors and create cushions for the already privileged. A law professor of mine was fond of the quote "[t]he law, in its majesty and equality, makes equal to both the poor and rich the crime of sleeping under a bridge"), create systems that paradoxically force them into a situation where it's both eminently rational to continue being poor (to receive state benefits) while punishing them from being in a condition to use those programs. Now, I don't want this to sound like a "the poor are lazy" position or anything like that (or, alternatively, a "every single person who is poor is 100% a victim and no one is responsible at all for their conditions" type position), but it's worth noting - since this is a post on how state power works - that the state already has fairly sophisticated systems for marginalizing people and keeping them marginalized - usually under the auspices of being compassionate and enlightened.

All that out of the way, wherever one comes down on the issue of how things got to this point, the more critical issue at hand is whether or not a state program of 24 hour surveillance is appropriate or not. As in, appropriate when considering that we don't want our society to wither away and die. The conclusion that should coming screaming to your brain is: no. Not it is not. Foucault can be very helpful here. His concept of Biopower is illustrative of the dangers states represent these days, and why programs like these need to be resisted at all costs.

The concept of Biopower is, at its most basic, that methods of control have developed through technology to the point where the state is now capable of control at previously unimagined levels of breadth (i.e. entire populations) and depth (i.e. state control penetrates to your very body). Foucault referred to this as the poles of discipline and regulatory controls. These are changes in control brought out by the emergence of the modern state, modern capitalism, etc.

The key to all this is to understand the break in control methodology from the past. So far, we've identified the spheres of control that the state now shows interest (I would generally expand the definition of state to include a sort of state-corporate axis of power), but not the essential break from the past. That's the change in the state from ruling through threat of death to the levying of protection to portions of the population. The parlance I learned it as is: the state shifted from deciding who dies and thus allowing some to live to deciding who lives and this allowing others to die (AIDs victims, for example).* This is a much more subtle and pervasive form of control - on the surface much more of Huxley than Orwell - and it's much less likely to be challenged than the older, more brutal methods of control.

*In an interesting twist, a recent spinoff of the concept of Biopolitics is the notion of Necropolitics which actually reverses the decide live/let die trend again, but with the controlling apparatus of breadth and depth already in place. It's no mistake that this is a concept developed in Africa, home of some of the most brutal states on the planet right now. I'll have a link to a paper on Necropolitics at the bottom of this post.

So, under the guise of humanitarianism, the state is able to extend its power over its subjects. The textbook example of biopower in action here in the United States is the government's involvement in abortion. Abortion laws are about the mass control of the bodies of the entire female population, with the state being able to levy its power against the reproductive organs of females.

In the UK, now, we have an example of the government rolling out a program of Big Brother-like proportions where rewards and punishment are doled out based on the health of a child's body and what substances you may or may not have in your own. This is the final cutting away of any personal sphere that the state doesn't have jurisdiction over. And if people who read this think that it will stop at "only" the 20,000 or so families targeted right now... they need to keep in mind the nature of state power, which is to continue growing itself.

That's why this kind of stuff is insidious, that's why it's wrong. It isn't just about what happens to one group of people, it's about redefining what parts of you - your actual physical body - that the state has controlling jurisdiction of. This may be happening overseas right now, but none of us should be foolish enough to this this trend isn't starting here at home too.

Maybe soma holidays aren't so bad.

Further reading:

-From Biopower to Biopolitics by Maurizio Lazzarato
-Necropolitics by Achille Mbembe

Addendum: This is definitely a post you'll be seeing direct sequels to, so consider this "part one of an ongoing series." And, of course, any post that relates to the state and government policy is intimately related to this post, so there will be many indirect sequels. So, yeah, don't think this is the alpha and the omega of my thoughts on state power.

On Health Care

2009-09-10T11:23:00.008-06:00

So, obviously the big issue of the day (month, year, etc.) is health care. I'll preface this post by stating that I have a few different views of how I see health care and the health care debate:

1. We can do a "realist" analysis where we limit our expectations on what can actually get done and judge health care based on that. Taking into account the kind of dollars that flow from Big Pharma and the insurance industry into the coffers of Congress (yes, Little Timmy, into the warchests of Democrats too) helps us stake out what we think might actually get accomplished. In the end, this is more or less where I'll fall in terms of whether I consider what ends up getting passed as a net gain or not.

2. That said, it still behooves us to seriously consider what it would actually take to "fix" health care. I don't think of this as dreamy pie-in-the-sky nonsense but, instead, the kind of analysis we all need to be doing on this and any other number of issues. Then, we can analyze the "realist" alternatives and pick the one that at least begins to get us traveling down the road to real solutions to the problem at hand.

3. In terms of opposition to Obama's plan, while I have a number of reservations about it and may ultimately not support it, let's call a spade a spade: most of the vocal opposition to the plan has been utterly nuts. This does terrible damage in a few ways: a) It makes opposition to health care reform look ridiculous in general, b) it further marginalizes honest opposition and criticism of the Obama Health Plan (or its variants), c) in marginalizing those criticisms, it seriously cripples the chances of actual, constructive input being given to help make the health care reform bill better - or at least less bad. While it shouldn't be surprising to anyone who pays any attention at all to politics, the health care debate has obviously been dominated by a team-first oriented approach and, especially in the case of the opposition, tactics of pure obstructionism. It's not surprising in the least, but it's still disappointing and it's hurting this country.

4. I have no interest in debating whether Obama is good or evil or thinks he's doing right or wrong. I supported him in his election bid and I believe he generally thinks he's pursuing policy that will help most Americans. To me, most of issues here are institutionally grounded and playing musical chairs with leadership wouldn't be too helpful anyways.

Okay, those bits are out of the way and point #3 was a bit longer since I don't plan on revisiting crazy claims about Death Panels and all that - mainstream Dems have to spend enough time countering that stuff so there's no point in rehashing the more insane criticisms here. Moving on.

Let's start by laying down some framework for what we're talking about. We can generally discuss health care reform by reading about it, to there isn't really any reason not have a basic grasp of what's being proposed.

So, in a nutshell, the plan is to tighten up some regulations on insurance providers making it harder for them to kick your coverage due to pre-existing conditions and to force some increases in who private insurers can cover. Fine, I guess. Unlike some of my fellows, I still think the plan outlines by Obama will make things a bit better than they are now, especially if some sort of "public option" is developed. However, even the sort of public option envisioned by Obama et al. is no great shakes - just something akin to an option of last resort. Ah well.

The biggest problem is that, despite how heated the debate on all this has been, there's a distinct whiff of "re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic." If you look at the plan, not much is actually changing. We're really just re-adjusting and making some new incentives and regulations. But nothing very major in any way. Look, the way I see it is that health care reform can go down three different routes:

1. A shift towards Canadian or European-style government run health care.
2. The status quo with some minor shuffling of incentives and regulations.
3. A libertarian/anarchist approach that would eliminate state-privileged monopolies and regulatory systems, more on this in a moment.

It seems insane to me that anyone could watch last night's speech by the President, read the basic analysis of the plan, and come away with any conclusion other than this is falling squarely in route #2. This should be one of those "no duh" kind of things. Even if the discussed "public option" makes it in, that's no real game changer in terms of the analysis. Now, the "realist" analysis in me says we really shouldn't expect options #1 or #3 happening anyways, so as far as "status quo" options go, Obama's plan is alright I suppose. But it kind of feels like I'm being forced to answer the eternal Mountain Dew or Crab Juice question here. There has to be a better way, right?

Well, yes, exactly right. Either options #1 or #3 would, to my mind, be a major improvement over what we have now. Minor tweaks here and there might help a few people out - and I certainly don't want to marginalize their experiences or be petty enough to suggest they don't matter - but in terms of a long term policy solution, the adhesive bandages just ain't gonna cut it. Now, the upshot of even this tepid reform plan is that it at least starts framing some of these issues in terms of a path that could lead route #1. Small comfort maybe, but hey, that's the upshot.

Maybe this makes me a bad libertarian lefty, but I can't help but look at countries like Canada and think: "that's still a hell of a lot better than what we have now." So, if this is the first baby step to that kind of system I'll be (sort of) happy. To my mind, the promise of expanding state power at least has the possibility of enticing our lawmakers into going up against the insurance and pharmacutical companies. And, in this blogger's humble opinion, it's at least slightly better to have power amassed in the hand's of a state apparatus that purports to serve the will of the people than a handful of multi-national corporations that don't even pretend to serve anyone but their shareholders. Again, I guess I'll take the crab juice here.

The above point #3 - an anarchist/libertarian approach to health care - seems ultimately the most satisfactory to me. A good write up of it can be found here. I think, if nothing else, this critique should serve as an excellent starting point in terms of what really needs to get done to fix health care. From the linked article:

Stop offering protection to patents and copyrights.
Eliminate hospital accrediting and professional licensing rules, leaving a variety of flexible, competing market-based certification systems to do the job.
Limit malpractice awards to actual damages plus the costs of recovery (including reasonable legal fees).
Repeal regulations that prevent the sale of insurance across state lines and the prevent the operation of what amount to insurance schemes by health professionals.
Alter the tax code to de-link employment and insurance. (This change would have the potential to boost net taxes, of course, if it weren’t made in tandem with the tax cuts for which I’ve argued.)
Replace the FDA approval process with alternative, voluntary private certification systems.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies.

So, at best, Obama's plan is only addressing a sliver of the overall problem. While doing some tweaking on the insurance end of things may bring some welcome changes (hell, I trust an insurance agency to do right by me about as far as I can throw 'em), we're still firmly entrenched in "deck chair" mode until some of those points, ESPECIALLY points #1 and 2, are addressed.

Once you accept the bulk of those points as basic problems with health care here in the United States, the obvious solutions become ones of deregulation, but real deregulation. It's not enough to faux-deregulate and keep monopolistic powers entrenched. The whole point is to open up the arena of health insurance to allow lots of people to offer it, provide cheap medicines and medical services, and give real, sustained access and choice to people.

So, here's where the judgment call comes in. If the libertarian/anarchist model is the preferred choice out of the three presented, does it make sense to set a path towards socialized medicine first? In other words, does pursuing #1 as a short-to-medium term goal derail efforts towards the long-term goal of #3? In my judgment, the two need not be mutually exclusive efforts. While we have to be wary about the growth of state power, I still see the growth of state power at the expense of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as something that's easier to manage and fight in the long term.

In terms of reform, I foresee (rose colored glasses on here) a gradual process that simultaneously develops a Canadian/European style socialized health care system while at the same time loosening the stranglehold on copyright and patent protections. I think that given some of the unique tendencies in American society and politics, the government won't ever eliminate - or hobble as critically - the private insurance industry as we see in other countries. I hope that as plans to develop state run health care progress, the counter-balance will be increasing deregulation of private alternatives to placate citizens concerned with the amassing of state power. This has the benefit of accomplishing some of the goals set forth in an anarchist health care plan while framing it in terms of what we may realistically expect policy-wise.

At some point, of course, the state as an entity needs to be dealt with, but hopefully by that point we'll have seen enough deregulation and opening in the private market that most folks will come to see the state option as superfluous. That's the hope anyways.

How do we accomplish this? Obviously, this is a long term plan and whatever happens with Obama's health care bill (personally, I think a bill will be passed) the long term goals and considerations can't be forgotten or overlooked. Unlike some of my voluntaryist friends, I still see value in working within institutions. Indeed, I think there would be a real public current in favor of my loose program of the simultaneous development of a state option coupled with deregulation in the private sector. Since health care is regulated and controlled to the hilt right now, people looking for alternative solutions need one of two things to happen: 1) the collapse of the state or 2) deregulation from the state. While I see the first option as possible goal in the long term, in the short and medium term I think deregulation is a possible and, dare I say realistic goal. While the nature of the state is always towards increased power and control, careful vigilance can stem some of this and, in some areas, even roll back this control. I think a careful program of working both within the system and without it may yield some success.

In any case, I think we've all gotten to the point where we realize something needs to be done - because plans to simply perpetuate the status quo will lead to ever increasing misery. Let's hope we can see real positive change in our lifetimes.

Further reading:

-Health Care: An Anarchist Approach by Gary Chartier
-How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis: Medical Insurance That Worked - Until the Government "Fixed" It by Roderick T. Long
-Forcing Insurance Companies to Cover Preexisting Conditions is Immoral by Sheldon Richman*
-Obamacare: Status Quo on Steroids by Sheldon Richman**

*Addendum: In the comments section, Gene posted a link to the above linked article. I've included it since I think it's some excellent food for thought. I've given some cursory reactions in the comments section, but some of the issues discussed may be worthy of a dedicated post in the future.

**Addedum II: Gene has posted another excellent link in the comments section, added here. Another from Richman, this delves into some other important/interesting issues touched on in this post and worthy of further considertation.

A Few Orders of Business

2009-09-10T10:30:00.004-06:00

Hey all,

I know it's been a while since I last posted here on the blog - and even longer since I last posted anything of *substance* Well, fear not, I am not deceased. I'll actually be having a real post with real content up later today, but first I wanted to lay out a few orders of business:

1. I'll be doing some sidebar housecleaning. Adding some some stuff I'm reading these days and removing stuff that doesn't interest me any longer. I might add a new section for internet forums I like, too.

2. While I don't post here as often as I like, I DO have a Twitter account and Facebook profile. So check me out there.

3. There may be a few other tweaks around this site in the coming days. Nothing major.

4. I WILL be trying to post here more regularly. Both content-based posts and more superfluous stuff. I've also gotten some requests on old uploads and whatnot to either offer lossless copies or re-upload. Don't worry, I've gotten those messages and I'll get to them when I get a chance.

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #7

2009-08-02T15:45:00.000-06:00

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #6

2009-07-08T10:51:00.001-06:00

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #5

2009-07-04T10:11:00.000-06:00

The Fourth of July Mix:

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #4

2009-06-20T22:37:00.001-06:00

Something of a "don't trust Whitey" mix:

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #3

2009-05-31T09:43:00.000-06:00

Sort of an odd mix, but I think it rather works:

Sad Days, Lonely Nights

2009-05-06T01:12:00.000-06:00

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #2

2009-05-03T23:22:00.002-06:00

Goin' for the hardcore punk this time:

I Wish There Was a Store That Celebrated Free Comic Book Day Within an Hour of Where I Live

2009-05-02T12:59:00.004-06:00

That is all.

Flex's Mix For Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #1

2009-04-14T22:49:00.001-06:00

Hitler Getting Punched

2009-04-09T08:39:00.002-06:00

I am contributing my considerable skills and charms to this: http://hitlergettingpunched.blogspot.com/

It is a web log or "blog" of sorts. In that it is a blog. A blog that posts media of Hitler getting punched. Have I enticed you yet?

Poison Girls - Statement: The Complete Recordings

2009-03-23T22:23:00.002-06:00

The Poison Girls are a great Anarcho-Punk band that have been around for some time now. More diverse musically than the basic template of the late 70s/early 80s, this band is one of the pillars of the scene (in my humble opinion, anyways). Here is there now out of print collection from a few years ago.

Download: Disc 1, Disc 2, Disc 3, Disc 4

Track listing:

Disc One 1977-80:
Revenge
Cats Eye
Piano Lessons
Closed Shop
The Moon (I Wanted)
Old Tart
Crisis
Idealogically Unsound
Bremen Song
Political Love
Jump Mama Jump
Under the Doctor
Reality Attack
Persons Unknown
State Control
Bully Boys
Tension
SS Snoopers

Disc Two 1981-82:
Promenade Immortelle
State Control
Another Hero
Hole in the Wall
Underbitch
Alienation
Pretty Polly
Good Time
Other
Daughters & Sons
Tender Love
Dirty Work
Statement
Don't Go Home Tonight
Fuckin' Mother

Disc Three 1983-84:
Where's the Pleasure
Lovers are they Worth it
Done It All Before
Whiskey Voice
Menage Abattoir
Take the Toys
Soft Touch
Toys (Reprise)
Velvet Launderette
Rio Disco Stink
Cry No More
Mandy is Having a Baby
Fear of Freedom
Happy Now (12" mix)
Cinnamon Garden
Offending Article
Perfect Crime
Tell the Children
Cream Dream

Disc Four 1985-88:
Real Woman
Hot for Love
Riot in my mind
Feeling the Pinch
Desperate Days
Voodoo Pappadollar
Too Close for Comfort
Rockface
No More Lies
Too Proud
Price of Grain
Stonehenge
Jenny
Girls Over There
Let It Go
Cupid
Mirrors and Glass
Abort the System
All The Way
State Banjo

Sibling Rivalry - In a Family Way

2009-03-16T09:08:00.003-06:00

[Alternative Tentacles, 1994]

This is a little project by Joey Ramone with his brother Mickey Leigh. A minor entry in the Ramones canon, but kinda fun. Track three, I believe, isn't actually done by the brothers and is just sort of a tacked on bit of weirdness. Fun stuff.

Download here.

If Frank Miller Wrote Peanuts

2009-03-10T11:30:00.002-06:00

This is extremely hilarious.

Check out the full thing here: Part 1 & part 2.

(Via Super Punch)

Saucy Batman

2009-03-09T21:45:00.003-06:00

Oh my.

the Punisher Meets Archie

2009-03-08T23:03:00.003-06:00

For anyone who has missed this little gem, check it out:

Archie Meets the Punisher or The Punisher Meets Archie (August 1994) was a one-shot comic book intercompany crossover published under two separate covers by Marvel Comics and Archie Comics.Archie Meets the Punisher (Archie Comics) and The Punisher Meets Archie (Marvel Comics) shared the same interior content. It featured the unlikely meeting of Marvel's murderous vigilante, the Punisher, and Archie Comics' all-American teenager, Archie Andrews.
The book was written by Batton Lash, with artwork by John Buscema (drawing the Punisher characters) and Stan Goldberg (drawing the Archie characters).

Holy crap, right? I think this an amazing crossover that really lives up to its promise.

You can get it here.

A Couple of New Links

2009-02-26T09:16:00.005-07:00

I'm adding a couple of new links and doing some cleanup on the sidebar. Here are a few new links y'all may enjoy:

The Thing on the Doorstep - This is a great site for music downloads, mostly oddball recordings. Lots of neat fringy 80s industrial/new wave type stuff. Give it a go.

You Breed Like Rats - A great site focused on early 80s hardcore. Downloads, videos and interviews. Plenty of focus on less well known bands. A veritable treasure trove of information.

ColoradoPols - On a totally different note, this is the go-to blog for Colorado focused politics. Generally witty and pretty good insider-type information. A must read for Coloradans.

CosmoBells' The Awesomely Brilliant Steve Ditko - I'm linking to this particular entry because it has a great write-up of the comic artist/writer Steve Ditko. It also has some downloads of Ditko comics. Well worth checking out.

The Proletariat - Distortion Demo Tape

2009-02-15T10:56:00.003-07:00

Hey kids,

Once upon a time there was a really kick ass punk band out of Boston call The Proletariat. They released a few pretty kick ass records which had obvious Gang of Four influences. Anyways, without further ado, here is their first demo tape available for enjoyment via the interweb miracle known as "free streaming." Check it:

The Proletariat - Distortion

Oh, and if you like these tracks, you can buy their complete recordings here.