The fine people at SubPop were nice enough to send out the new Shins CD
a few days early and I got it yesterday (hits the streets today). So,
I've given it a listen and a half and maybe my expectations were too
high, but I'm disappointed. As you may know, I don't think bands
should necessarily "grow" or "move in new directions". If it ain't broke
don't fix it. It's a small group of bands that can change it up and pull it
off. (think Stones doing Country or the Beatles doing whatever they
want)
That said, the new CD has a few (2 or 3) songs with the "classic" Shins
sound; guitar-driven popiness with very abstruse lyrics. The ambiguous
lyrics are there, but the guitars are missing. At times it feels like
Beck broke into the Studio and added synthesizers. I also think (and I
mentioned this when the single was released) that James Mercer was
listening to a lot of Beach Boys, and I still think he did try to
channel Brian Wilson on a few tracks.
When "Chutes Too Narrow" came out, I didn't love that either, but it
grew on me. It's still no "Oh, Inverted World", but it's a great CD.
At this point "Wincing the Night Away" is not and it hurts me to say
that.
What will Zach Braff do?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
New Shins CD
I pre-ordered my Shins CD months ago directly from SubPop. Have you? When I ordered it I also order two CD singles. Oh James, why so long b/t CDs?
Also, the past week...I can't get enough of The New Pornographers "Twin Cinema". I liked it when I bought it, but I have seriously listened to that CD a dozen times all the way through in the past week and it is pure brilliance.
Also, the past week...I can't get enough of The New Pornographers "Twin Cinema". I liked it when I bought it, but I have seriously listened to that CD a dozen times all the way through in the past week and it is pure brilliance.
Some more of that ""Bush is doing everything he can to protect America"
"Bush is doing everything he can to protect America" (that's how the Bushies always explain when they are imprisoning Americans while ignoring the COnstitution)
OR
"Just following in Daddy's footsteps by selling arms to our enemy, Iran."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/
OR
"Just following in Daddy's footsteps by selling arms to our enemy, Iran."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/
Will Bush use this to invade Syria
Are these the Weapons that my Bushie friend has been talking about for four years?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655063/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655063/
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Which Romney?
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/10/video_of_liberal_mitt_romney_quotes_surfaces
I'm confused. Which Romney do you like?
I'm confused. Which Romney do you like?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The "unchanging institution of marriage"
A Bushie friend got his shorts in a bundle over gays in the military. When I asked him why he chose to put America in danger b/c boys kissing made him feel icky, he got onto gay Marriage (a tactic he's no doubt learned from watching America's most dangerous idiot, Sean Hannity, on a loop). That thread had started when the article about retired General Shalikashvili wrote in the NY Times that he felt gays should serve openly in the military.
_______________
In response to his claim that Marriage was an institution that was thousands of years old and was "the basis for our civilization and culture".
My response:
Again, Marriage wasn’t the topic, so I’ll just assume you put your “icky feelings” about gays above the safety of America.
With that established, you need to do some research on marriage. The concept of “civil” marriage is relatively new. Marriage as a religious sacrament is quite older, so if you’re supporting a Libertarian solution that states should completely get out of the civil marriage game, they’ll be glad to have you.
Additionally, since you’ve brought up “thousands of years” you’ve opened up this debate to the globe (since the United States did not exist thousands of years ago). What about other parts of marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, daughters sold into marriage and assorted other practices that have existed as “marriage” for thousands of years, do you also support those for the mere sake of nostalgia? That seems to be your argument. “Because we did it that way, that’s the way we should continue to do it” That is your position, no? Fortunately, most of the world doesn’t hold on to things b/c that’s how we’ve always done it. If so, we’d still be riding horses and reading by candlelight.
I don’t even need to get into the dissolution of marriage and how that has changed.
As for your belief (wrong as usual) that the “institution of marriage” is this unchanging bedrock here’s just a few points to challenge your mind:
1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See plural marriage.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1920 - Right of women to vote.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
_______________
In response to his claim that Marriage was an institution that was thousands of years old and was "the basis for our civilization and culture".
My response:
Again, Marriage wasn’t the topic, so I’ll just assume you put your “icky feelings” about gays above the safety of America.
With that established, you need to do some research on marriage. The concept of “civil” marriage is relatively new. Marriage as a religious sacrament is quite older, so if you’re supporting a Libertarian solution that states should completely get out of the civil marriage game, they’ll be glad to have you.
Additionally, since you’ve brought up “thousands of years” you’ve opened up this debate to the globe (since the United States did not exist thousands of years ago). What about other parts of marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, daughters sold into marriage and assorted other practices that have existed as “marriage” for thousands of years, do you also support those for the mere sake of nostalgia? That seems to be your argument. “Because we did it that way, that’s the way we should continue to do it” That is your position, no? Fortunately, most of the world doesn’t hold on to things b/c that’s how we’ve always done it. If so, we’d still be riding horses and reading by candlelight.
I don’t even need to get into the dissolution of marriage and how that has changed.
As for your belief (wrong as usual) that the “institution of marriage” is this unchanging bedrock here’s just a few points to challenge your mind:
1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons. See plural marriage.
1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States
1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1920 - Right of women to vote.
1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)