...and the hits just keep coming

Ok, so last thought about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin in the veepstakes. She just had a child with Down Syndrome 4 months ago! This is significant for a number of reasons. First, yes it does provide the GOP with that strong "family values" symbolism that they are known for, but there's a significant drawback here. The McCain campaign has asked her to join the ticket where she needs to travel nationally and actively work to get her new boss elected for the next two months or so. This puts demands on her time that will likely affect her ability to care for the infant (much more than being governor of Alaska would). That will hurt her mostly because this delicate balance will probably cut into the amount of time she would need to get up to speed on the plethora of major domestic and foreign policy issues that she needs to be able to process and speak about coherently. Second, this seems at odds with the Republicans' "family values" motif in the sense that they are kinda requiring that Mrs. Palin spend so much time away from the family and children (especially the youngest one who still needs to be nursed, burped, etc. with a mother's care in their view). Finally, my bright fiance pointed out to me that the materiality of a new mother's body can complicate matters even further. Giving birth has effects on a body, and that should be taken into account.

Let me be clear, though. None of this means that she can't do it or shouldn't take the job. It's just surprising that there appears to be little to no consideration for the amount of time and energy she would need to devote to raising her infant son and how that could trade off with the excessive demands that come with being McCain's running mate.

On Obama's speech and Palin

First, Obama's speech was amazing. He hit every point. He talked about the broader direction for the country, tapped into the higher calling he sees for the next 4-8 years, added in some specifics so people understand what "change" means, and popped McCain numerous times with easily the best lines of the campaign. It was wonderful. The game is ON now! The gloves are off, and Obama showed that he's ready for a fight. Sweet!! He made the best case possible, and left Republicans speechless. Their response was awful, and that leaves the Democrats with the advantage coming out of the convention, which leads me to...

Second, it seems that John McCain has tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. This is a bold, yet stupid choice for McCain. It's obvious that they are going with 2 things here: 1) shore up the conservative base (she's quite conservative, used to support Pat Buchanan...shudder) and 2) try to appeal to the Hillary holdouts by choosing a womyn. On the first, he's successful, but it comes at a cost of undermining support from independents. They have to hope that the GOP base will be larger than the Dem base + new first-time Obama supporters. On the second, I think this is a terrible idea. Basically, they're saying, "Pick McCain: his running mate has a vagina!" Her position on social issues that were terribly important to Hillary (that she talks about in her DNC speech) is at odds with the very womyn they're trying to sway. I think former Hillary voters will see through this pandering and will find insulting the idea that just picking a womyn, regardless of her positions on the issues, would be enough to sway them...Then again, Rachel Maddow seems to think that some of them are "post-rational." Any womyn that this would reach were already gonna vote for McCain before he made his pick. I doubt very seriously that choosing Palin will bring in new votes.

This choice comes with way too many risks. First, she's only been governor of Alaska (a state on the other side of Canada) for a year and a half. This means, of course, that she's got NO foreign policy experience, which is a huge negative for someone who would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Second, she's under investigation in her state for using her influence to fire an ex-brother-in-law, which will be difficult for the McCain campaign's attempts to brand her properly. Third, there is not enough time for the GOP to brand her before opponents and media will brand her. Finally, she is younger and less experienced than Obama, which undercuts McCain's argument that Obama isn't ready to lead (the only argument, by the way, that was gaining any traction). This dovetails nicely with Bill Clinton's argument that Obama's selection of Joe Biden shows good judgment.

We'll have to see how the rollout goes, but once the newness wears off, I think the McCain campaign will find out quickly that choosing her has only short term benefits and no long-term ones, particularly in terms of governance.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has been talking about this a bit, and he concludes that this isn't really a serious pick, particularly compared to Biden. He includes a couple comments he's received. My favorite is this one: "McCain's penchant for beauty queens is, um, subtle." (Get it? She was a former beauty queen! She finished second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant, according to Wikipedia.)

DNC day 3: quick thoughts

Awesome speech by Bill Clinton. He made a wonderful case! (Oratorical Animal is "liveblogging" the evening's speech, and his insight is excellent)

Now Kerry's up, and he is pissed! FINALLY!!!! Oh, this warms my heart so. His best distinction is Senator McCain vs. Candidate McCain. This is a good way to frame the McCain campaign from now until the election.

The gloves are OFF!

ps...the first two nights were great too, but they were lacking the umph and the punch that we're finally starting to see tonight. We've turned the corner. It's time to fight back!

Factoid of the Day

John McCain owns more houses than Oprah does!

PS Biden is a great pick for Obama!

Just a thought...

Isn't it interesting that Obama's $22 million May fundraising is his worst month so far and McCain's $21 million is his best month? I mean, McCain could only do that well 2 months after clinching the nomination and with basically nothing draining his resources, Obama was in the midst of his primary battle with Hillary Clinton (diverting his campaign away from fundraising), and they raised about the same amount of money? Wow. McCain should enjoy this closeness while he can because I have a feeling that it's the best piece of fundraising news he's going to get during this election.

Why Obama shouldn't fear a backlash about public financing

I’m getting a little tired of all the hay being made of Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing. There has been a lot of hand-wringing by Republicans and some claims of the media that Obama’s decision constitutes a grand shift. While I am personally an advocate for fully publicly financed campaigns for public office, I fully support Obama’s decision. Let’s look at a couple of the issues surrounding the move.

First, Obama never said that he would take public financing. What he said was that he would discuss it with McCain’s campaign. They discussed it, and Obama’s campaign says that McCain wasn’t interested in reigning in outside groups or 527 organizations that don’t adhere to campaign finance restrictions. Obama has started to do that because we hear today that Moveon.org will cease its 527 activity, which is a pretty big deal. Moveon.org is (at least perceptually) one of the larger and better noticed groups out there, so their move to back off really helps Obama perceptually more than any ads they would have put out could have done. The only “shift” for Obama is not meeting with McCain when he said that he would to figure something out. While the two might not have met personally, the campaigns do appear to have had some contact. They could have put forward more of a good faith effort if they were looking to appease the McCain campaign, but I’m not sure they need the McCain campaign’s approval. Sure, McCain will say it’s a breach of trust, but it’s difficult for them to translate this technical maneuver into a longstanding pattern of lying or breaking promises.

Second, while I support the decision, I am a little flabbergasted at the Obama campaign's fairly milquetoast defense of the move. Apart from some bloggers (Kos in particular), most of the people defending Obama have just recited his mild argument that the system is broken. It has fairly simple counterarguments, and it comes across as at least somewhat disingenuous. I don’t know why Obama isn’t just stepping up and saying, “Look, these objections would make sense if we got most of our money the old fashioned way (with lobbyists and PACs), but we don’t. Our campaign is directly people-powered. We are functionally a publicly financed campaign. The point of campaign finance laws is to prevent the use of money to influence a candidate’s positions. People give our campaign money because they believe in me. It would be wrong for me to return the investment of these great people just so we get caught in this rigged system (one that McCain is scamming).” Obama and some of his people have been making a similar argument kinda half-heartedly, but they can and should be much stronger in saying that this is a different kind of campaign. The direct nature of the funding for this campaign makes everyone’s complaints moot. Just. Say. THAT!

I like the decision, and I think ultimately the objections will dissipate in time (only Republicans will continue to whine about it after a few days). I just wish that the Obama people would more vigorously defend the decision and stop giving the opposition’s complaints as much credit as they have.

UPDATE: David Corn over at Mother Jones has a similar defense of Obama, but he tries to come across as more even-handed.

Desert Island Discs: Dummy

My favorite kinds of albums (regardless of genre) are the ones that you listen to a few times when you first get them, put them away or don't really listen to for a few months or even years. Then, you come back to them and re-engage them with a different perspective than the one you had when you first heard the music. Somehow, the latter listens feel deeper, richer, and more robust than the first time, even though it's been a while. I can do that with a few, special albums more than once. If you haven't done something like that, I would recommend it. It's really a nice experience. The trick, of course, is remembering to come back to the album in a few months.

I mention this little side story because it applies to my desert island disc of the day: Portishead's masterful debut record Dummy. It's an album that you cannot listen to just once. It begs for repeated engagement, on both musical and lyrical fronts. The more you listen, the further in you go into the emotional journey that Beth Gibbons and company weave with so much complexity that sometimes you can forget where you are or have been. That's ok, though, because the journey itself is more important than figuring out a destination. The opening arppegiated chords of the album's first track "Mysterons," with that echo, set the mood: dark and mysterious, yet welcoming. The album's primary single was "Sour Times" with the chorus "Nobody loves me, it's true/ not like you do" that translates dispair well, although in some ways this song sticks out from the rest of the album. I tend to find more comfort in the warmth of songs like "It Could Be Sweet," "Wandering Star," and "Roads." Also, let's not forget the spectacular closer "Glory Box." This song still keeps the dark moodiness, but it ends things on a slightly optimistic note that seems to take charge. Gibbons demands "Give me a reason to love you/ give me a reason to be a woman." Such a commanding stance feels like a source of power. It's not just that I feel a need to love others; I want to know that investment of my time and energy is worth something to them. Overall the songs come together well, and they have complemented various moments in my life, some good and others bad.

Also, let's talk about genre for this record. There are elements of jazz, soul, alternative rock, and yes...most certainly the genre the album is most known for: trip hop. They essentially inspired trip hop with this CD, and it makes sense why. At the time there really wasn't much like this record out there, so it felt so new and creative. Even to this day I think it's a very creative record, and it's part of why I'm so into their long-awaited Third album (it's one of my favorites of the year so far...I have a mini-review of it a few posts ago).

What this album does for me more than anything else, though, is just exist as a companion. It recognizes that life has problems. The waters are turbulent, yet I feel ok with the turbulence when I listen to this record. We don't need to have all the answers to questions or problems. It's enough that we have a relationship with the world around us. That relationship is changing, and it invites participation. It begs for us to engage with it. Dummy gives me the strength and perspective to do so without feeling like I'm giving too much of myself in the process. I get as much as I give. For me, the record's strength isn't so much that I feel like Beth Gibbons understands me (or anything like that) as much as it is that I feel a connection in the kinds of feelings she conveys independent of specific experiences or perspectives. Isn't that enough, though? Even if I have no idea what someone else is going through and can't relate through sharing similar life experiences, isn't it enough sometimes to share an emotion, or more basically, an affect? I think so, and that's why I heart Dummy.

Previous Desert Island Discs
Radiohead - OK Computer

Underrated or Appreciated Albums: Regretfully Yours

I thought that the Desert Island Discs post was so much fun (I'll certainly have more in the coming weeks) that I came up with other specially-themed posts to do. This one, Underrated or Appreciated, deals with albums that I like a lot but am surprised and a little disappointed that they didn't get more attention/praise. I've found this trend happening often enough that it deserves its own kind of post. Basically, I'm going to do two things in this kind of post: 1) praise the album I like, and 2) complain that more people don't see things my way.

First up in this set of posts is one that I think is one of the most underrated albums of the 90s: Superdrag's debut album Regretfully Yours. This album came out in 1996 at the height of the alterna-craze of the 90s. "Sucked Out" was the main buzzworthy song, and MTV played the video for a little while. The rest of the CD, however, was overlooked for some reason. I mean, I like "Sucked Out" for sure (who can't appreciate screaming along with John Davis, "Who sucked out the FFFEEEEEEAALLLLIIINNNNGGGG?!?"), but most of the album has a really nice energy. Also, despite its occasionally depressing lyrics, the songs sound upbeat and so catchy. It's a fun album that combines the youth of innocence with the angst of adolescence. Maybe that's why I got into the record so much during college.

You have such a strong start with "Slot Machine," the driving one chord that moves into lines about unrequited love and trying for friendship. The song bleeds into another smooth rocker, "Phaser," that makes you want to dance and jump around. Another strong point is "Destination Ursa Major," a song that builds up enough energy to propel it to the stars. The second half of the album is great, although it is more hit or miss than the first half. "Whitey's Theme" has a playful feel, particularly since it includes a guitar solo that sounds like like a taunting song that everybody sang on the playground in elementary school. "N.A. Kicker" has such a sweet guitar line that it practically demands a head bob. The album's closer, "Rocket," finishes off the record with another bouncy, driving melody that promises you it won't go away. The only bothersome tracks on the record are "Truest Love" and "Nothing Good is Real." Both are worth skipping, but even if you take them away, you have eleven songs that make a nice, cohesive album that can meet you with as much optimism or pessimism as you are willing to bring. Either way, Regretfully Yours packs a punch and gets you to enjoy the ride.

Unfortunately, Superdrag were never really able to recapture the same amount of magic that they achieved on their first album. Subsequent records have good songs here and there, but they couldn't make an album that worked as well as a cohesive unit like Regretfully Yours. I'm really surprised that they didn't receive more attention or praise for this album, mostly because I think there were enough strong songs that they could have certainly been appreciated by a broader audience. "Sucked Out" was their biggest hit, but it didn't really create the lasting attention for them that carried over to other songs, sadly enough. They're certainly worth listening to, particularly if you have an affinity for 90s alternative.

Superdrag - Sucked Out
Superdrag - Destination Ursa Major

A new way to get music

I've been searching off and on for a way to get music cheaply or free for a while. I like supporting local, indie music stores when I can, partially because they're a dying breed and partially because there are a couple great ones in Athens within walking distance of UGA's campus. The problem, however, is that being a starving grad student means I don't have enough disposable income to spend on a slew of albums that I might be interested in hearing. I have to pick and choose. The only other alternative is getting them from torrent sites, and I think the RIAA's narrative and heavy handed tactics are enough to make me feel guilty whenever I even visit one of those sites, regardless of my ambivalence regarding intellectual property and copyright laws.

Early this year I heard about a music service for college students (yes, I still technically count, even though I'm not in undergrad) that provides free music. It's called Ruckus, and it's a fairly good way to access most of the music that you might want. It obviously doesn't have everything, but the selection is pretty good. I mean, most of the albums that I listed in my "Favorite Albums of 2007 (latecomer edition)" and "Favorites so far of 2008" posts I got through Ruckus. The upside is the pretty good selection and ease of getting stuff (once you get the hang of the website/player). The downsides are the following:
1) you have to download the Ruckus player, so that becomes another player that you have to deal with. The Ruckus player itself doesn't have many bells or whistles. It also doesn't link up with other programs very well like iTunes, Winamp, or Windows Media Player. There is a slight way around this, however. The files are all in .wma format, so they can be played in Windows Media Player with no trouble. In fact, I rarely listen to the songs through the Ruckus player anymore; I use Windows Media Player.
2) in order to download anything, you have to have both the player and the website up at the same time. It doesn't all work through just one or the other. This isn't really that big of a deal, but it can be a hassle compared to sites like iTunes and other similar programs.
3) DRM: this isn't specific to Ruckus. iTunes has DRM, and most websites that sell their music (or have it for free) have some form of encryption on their music files. The point, obviously, is to limit what you can do with the music file. Ruckus, however, goes farther than iTunes. With iTunes, you can at least burn the files to a CD even if you can't convert them to mp3 or a more usable file. Ruckus doesn't allow burning, converting, or transferring the files to another device. You can't load the files onto iTunes, because iTunes would need to convert the files away from .wma, and you can't convert them. DRM gets in the way of transferring the files onto a portable mp3 player. If you plan on listening to a lot of music at your computer, then it's ok, but you can't take the music with you as is.

All in all, I'm glad to have Ruckus because at the very least, I can listen to new stuff and get a sense of whether I like it enough to buy either online or in CD form at a local store. If you're a university student, you can sign up for free and download music for free. It's a great, free, legal way to learn about many new artists, and if the album is available from Ruckus, you can get it the day it comes out. For example, I've been listening to the new Death Cab for Cutie album off and on this week. I might review it a little later...Who knows?

Desert Island Discs: OK Computer

A while ago, a friend of mine, Bethany, began a frequent blog post idea in response to an idea from her father: desert island discs. It's kind of a popular thought experiment. If you were stranded on a desert island and could only have a handful of albums (assuming a way to listen to them) with you, what would you take and why? Typically, the goal is to point out some of your favorite albums of all time, albums that have made a big impact on one's life. I like the idea so much that I'm starting the series here. First up, I have to go with the top one on the list, a soundtrack to technological dystopia.

In 1998, critically acclaimed alternative band Radiohead went from "pretty good" to "this generation's Beatles" with their third album: OK Computer. This album has been noted by Spin Magazine as the top album from 1985-2005. It has the originality, songwriting, melody, and lyrical complexity that you only get in rare albums when things go just right. Of course, the album's popularity on its own isn't the only reason I have it here. I bought the album not too long after it came out. It has both the pessimism and the ambiance that has followed me for the 10 years since its release. It has grown with me, and the sounds have only deepened with repeated listens. I've also seen Radiohead play most of the album live, and they achieve a fullness that even eclipses the album in a concert setting.

The first guitar line of the opening song, "Airbag," begins the album with a sense of disorientation. The song discusses the feeling of a car accident and the feeling of empowerment that comes with surviving a potentially tragic event. Next came the album's first single, "Paranoid Android," which both delves into the fear of totalitarian control and the desire for that same sense of control that overruns you. Consider the lyrics, "when I am king you will be first against the wall/ with your opinion which is of no consequence at all." The song goes over 6 minutes, and winds through both heavily distorted guitars on both sides of a beautiful, melodic breakdown. This song is so complex that it took me a few listens to appreciate it fully. From there, we have one of the softer numbers about alien abduction "Subterranean Homesick Alien." Next comes the song written for the end credits of Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet," "Exit Music (For A Film)." It is the second eeriest song on the album, yet the hushed intimacy builds to the dramatic climax with the line "we hope that you choke." "Let Down" comes next, a song that beautifully spells out pessimism. Ending the first half of the album is the most popular song on the record, "Karma Police." This somber ode to comeuppance imagines a scenario in which you are able to enact just revenge on those who annoy you. The song ends with what sounds like machinery breaking down as it fades into the most unique track on the record. The second half of the album begins with "fitter happier," a repetition of popular, feel good platitudes spoken by a computer voice. The effect is to disconnect the words from emotion, making them feel empty and cynical. "Electioneering" follows, the loudest song on the record and a direct critique of status quo politics. We move from the loudest song to the creepiest song, "Climbing Up The Walls." Thom Yorke finds ways both with notes and with lyrics to scare the ever-loving crap out of you. Then we transition to the lullaby, "No Surprises." This one is such an interesting sleeper because includes lyrics about fading out ("a handshake of carbon monoxide") as well as political messages ("bring down the government/ they don't, they don't speak for us"). This song typifies Radiohead's complexity on the album because of the musical beauty combined with such varied lyrical expressions. Next comes "Lucky," another eerie song that is also confident and complex. With such a somber, yet brave tone, Yorke belts out "it's gonna be a glorious day/ I feel my luck could change." The album ends with "The Tourist," another lullaby, but it expresses both the sadness and frustration of going too fast without slowing down to pay attention to the world around you.

This album has helped me comprehend my emotional state in some more depressing moments as well as helped me cope with what I often see as a horrific political/cultural environment. Though my outlook on some things has changed, I can safely say that I wouldn't be who I am without this album. It may sound cliche, but in some important ways, I found out who I was because of OK Computer.

ADDENDUM: After looking back through this entry, I realized that my review of the album feels kinda weak. I don't think I did the album real justice by just talking about every song and saying the album means a lot to me. I want to add a little more. For me, the sheer beauty of this album comes in the incredible mixture of lyrical content and musical diversity that still maintains an overarching theme. It's like a concept album without really being a concept album per se. OK Computer expresses fear and revulsion at a world gone terribly wrong, and this was in 1998. Think about it: Clinton was in office, things were going fairly well economically, we weren't fighting wars, and the biggest scandal was Bill's zipper problem. Yorke was able to see that something was amiss years before the rest of us could, and I think that's part of what has made this album stand the test of time more than any other in recent memory. His perspectives and turns of phrase have only become more relevant as the years went on. The album was truly ahead of its time, and it's taken many of us years to figure out how much the band's commentary on where we have been going in the past decade makes sense! It has given me the perspective to notice that the world we live in has serious problems, yet at the same time, despite the music's sense of despair, there's just a glimmer of hope in knowing that the ability to diagnose some of the problems with the world around you means that you are doing the right thing. Ultimately, that's what the album's about: understanding your relationship with a messed up world around you. That's what has given this album such meaning to me for the last decade. I have been able to use it when I was personally depressed about random things and when I needed to cope with some critically negative developments in the world at large. I think that's why so many have found this album near the top of their favorites lists.

My open letter to Al Gore

Dear Mr. Vice President,

Let me start off by saying that you are beyond a doubt one of my few heroes in politics. You have been nothing short of a dedicated public servant despite the terrible hand that you have been dealt throughout your career. I cannot imagine that anyone else, after actually winning the presidency only to have it stolen from them in broad daylight, would handle the situation with more dignity and sophistication than you did. Not only that, you have worked since then to make the world a better place through your tireless work on so many fronts, most noticed of course being your work with global warming. I love An Inconvenient Truth, and I have been thoroughly amazed at the amount of time and energy that you have personally put into your attempts to find viable and significant solutions to the serious crisis we face in global warming.

On a personal note, I heard that you recently hired a friend of mine, Brad Hall, to work with you on research for upcoming work. You could not have made a better decision. He is a brilliant and hard working guy, and I know that whatever you have in mind will only be enhanced with him at your side.

A couple days ago, I came across a brief article that stuck out in my mind. In it, you are quoted as saying that, no matter who becomes president, you will not accept a cabinet level position if the next president were to offer it to you. I am writing to you, sir, to ask that you reconsider that position.

I can understand your decision not to run for president in 2008. I mean, you got stung once by the dirtiest tricks that the Republicans could conjure up (openly stealing an election), and I think I could see why you would not want to put yourself through the rigor and pain of another long presidential campaign, particularly since, as you are quoted in the article, you are "looking for a way to bring about change in other ways." A campaign would mean a diversion of a lot of resources and time that you have focused on fighting global warming. I can also understand why you would not want to be someone's running mate. You did that job for 8 years, and it would not make sense for you to be asked to do it again.

I am, however, a little perplexed that less than 6 months away from the Presidential election in November and 8 months away from the Inauguration of a new President you would already close the door on another opportunity for public service. First, a lot could happen between now and then, and I feel like someone of your experience and high competence would be a Godsend for our government as we turn the corner away from the disaster called "The Bush Administration." Second, I am not sure I see a high-level position in the government as mutually exclusive with the other ways you are looking to bring about change. I'll admit that I don't know all of what you are doing to fight global warming, but I feel like a lot of it could overlap with at least some of the projects you have at the time. Third, working in the government means that you have a direct influence on policy, meaning that you can take bigger steps than most people can in the private sector. You wouldn't have to be Secretary of State or Attorney General. How about being head of the EPA? You would get cabinet rank even though the EPA technically isn't a cabinet agency. I think this would be a wonderful place for you not only because you could set government policy with regard to our environment (which would make the most sense because you're immanently qualified for the job!) but because placing someone of your stature at the top of the EPA would also bring respect to an agency that doesn't really get much respect in the eyes of the country. It would signal to the country and to the world that the US is committed to taking substantial action on global climate change now. Placing you as head of the EPA would be one of the biggest symbolic and material steps forward that the next President could take in our fight to reverse the effects of global warming.

All I ask, sir, is that you think about it. If after reconsidering the idea you decided that your first inclination is correct, I would still respect you as much as I have and do. I just think that it's a bit premature to say "no" to the potential of working in the government again if the opportunity arose for you to have a direct effect on this country's habits and tendencies.

Either way, good luck in all you do. Keep fighting the good fight. Lord knows we need more people like you.

Blake

I think I'll save suicide for another year

The semester is finally over, and now that I have some extra time, I thought I'd mention some of my favorite music so far a little over 4 months into 2008. I've divided up the list into three sections: recommended, highly recommended, and favorites so far. Albums in the last category are in the running for my favorite of the year (subject of course to new additions). With the exception of the final category, the albums are listed in no particular order. Also, with the exception of the last category, I'm not gonna take the time to add commentary on each album. I noticed that there are a lot of albums here, and I'm too lazy to talk about each one at length.

Recommended:
Grand Archives – Grand Archives
Throw Me The Statue – Moonbeams
DeVotchka – A Mad and Faithful Telling
Gnarls Barkley – The Odd Couple
Hot Chip – Made In The Dark
Sera Cahoone – Only As The Day Is Long
R.E.M. – Accelerate (given where I live, it would be a crime to leave them off, but the album's nice without the geographical connection)
Elbow – The Seldom Seen Kid
The Kooks – Konk
The Fashion – The Fashion
Foals – Antidote

Highly recommended:
M83 – Saturdays = Youth
Fleet Foxes – Sun Giant EP
Dodos – Visiter
Vampire Weekend – Vampire Weekend
The Helio Sequence – Keep Your Eyes Ahead
Bon Iver - For Emma, Forever Ago
Headlights – Some Racing, Some Stopping
British Sea Power – Do You Like Rock Music?
The Whigs – Mission Control
Tokyo Police Club – Elephant Shell
Cloud Cult – Feel Good Ghosts

Favorites so far:
1) Frightened Rabbit – The Midnight Organ Fight: This is my favorite album of '08 at this point (despite the appearance of "Good Arms vs. Bad Arms" on Grey's Anatomy this week - it was the one at the end). It's like the potential that a band like Coldplay could reach if they just stopped trying too hard. The song construction and musicianship are just phenomenal, the melodies are infectious, and you can really relate to the ideas that the Hutchison brothers are trying to convey. It's so good that I can't even think of a weak track on the album. Standouts, though, are "The Twist," "Head Rolls Off," "Keep Yourself Warm," and "Good Arms vs. Bad Arms." I cannot recommend this record enough. Here's a video for "Head Rolls Off" to give you an idea of the greatness. Plus, kindergarteners seem to like it...

UPDATE: Charles over at Heartache With Hard Work has reviewed the album, and he agrees with me. He has one of my favorite mp3 blogs, and I often like his recommendations.



2) Cut Copy – In Ghost Colors: This is a close second for me, but the album is quite different than Frightened Rabbit. While they are more britpop-esque (whatever that term really means), Cut Copy is more of a genre traveler of sorts. They weave in and out of French pop, dance, New Wave (think Depeche Mode), and 90s Alternative so effortlessly that often you won't realize they are shifting genres until they've moved onto the next one! It's quite amazing to hear, actually. Plus, everything is just so darn catchy! I mean, all you have to hear is the opening song, "Feel the Love," and you'll be hooked. They have great melody, and it's just a great blend of elements. So many artists try to mix in new things and end up with such failure that it's refreshing to see a group get it right. "So Haunted" and "Lights & Music" are other standouts. Video for "Lights & Music" below.



3) Portishead - Third: How on earth did we get along for over a decade without a new Portishead record? I absolutely adore Dummy; it might qualify as a desert island disc (more on this in a future post). While their self-titled second album was a little bit of a let down, it was still very good. The burning question for all of us fans then was, "What is this album gonna sound like after an eleven year gap?" We all found out, and it is remarkable. They have moved beyond the confines of the trip hop box they helped to craft without losing signature sounds and arrangements. They also showed some new tricks up their sleeves to boot! This record is one I'm still digesting, and I am sure it will take some time for me to really process how I feel. My sense, though, is that the strength of this album comes in the way that all the disparate elements come together so well. I mean, you go directly from the short, ukulele driven, olde-timey sounding "Deep Water" to the pounding industrial sounds of "Machine Gun." As jarring as this transition can be, it works. Neither song feels out of place on the record. That alone is a significant accomplishment. Other standouts include "The Rip" and "We Carry On." Here's the video for "Machine Gun."



That's all I have for now. Thanks for reading. I feel like adding more as the summer progresses. I will probably discuss new music that I come across (I'm looking forward to the new Mates of State and My Morning Jacket for starters) as well as some more specifically themed posts. I may even throw in a political rant or two in...who knows? Until then, keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the top shelf of cookies.

UPDATE: I just realized that I forgot a couple more highly recommended albums.
The Mountain Goats - Heretic Pride
The Charlatans UK - You Cross My Path

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on Colbert Report

If you didn't see the Colbert Report Thursday, watch the video clips below. The two Democratic candidates left in the primary and the candidate who could have been appeared and did their respective comedic interactions with Stephen Colbert. Am I the only one who thought that the best performance came from the one who isn't in the race anymore? I may be just a skosh biased (I still wish that Edwards was our nominee...I can't help but believe that the Democrats wouldn't be nearly as worried about the general election if he were), but I thought that Edwards was significantly funnier than either Clinton or Obama. I know, I know...they have writers for each of the performances, but Edwards delivered his lines better. He had a more animated demeanor, and was more entertaining than the other two for me. I mean, he didn't even need to interact with Colbert to be funny. He got to do the whole segment by himself, and he nailed it! The other two were good, and they made their points resonate with each's campaign theme, but I was left wishing that Edwards was our candidate... Oh well, either way all three of the cameos were funny and made one of the better episodes in a while.

Favorite Albums of 2007 part 2: Latecomer Edition

So remember how in the last post I mentioned that I like end of the year lists because they are good for recommendations? It's really a fun thing to do; I recommend it. I found out about The Hold Steady and Midlake a year ago the same way. Well, I have had some time to find, listen to, and process some of the albums that were on various people's end of the year lists, and I thought I'd list some of my favorites. I'm not going to re-do the list I made. At the time that was my list, and I won't change that. Think of this as an addendum, really. So here they are in no particular order.

Panda Bear - Person Pitch
Animal Collective - Strawberry Jam
LCD Soundsystem - Sound of Silver
Sambassadeur - Migration
Yeasayer - Yeasayer
Cloud Cult - The Meaning of 8
Shout Out Louds - Our Ill Wills
Stars - In Our Bedroom After the War
Let's Go Sailing - The Chaos In Order
Palomar - All Things, Forests
Deerhunter - Cryptograms
Jay Z - American Gangster
Iron and Wine - The Shepherd's Dog
M.I.A. - Kala
Justice - †

Maybe soon if I have some time after schoolwork dies down I will post with a "favorites of 2008 so far" type post.

My Top 20 albums of 2007

I love "best albums of the year" lists. I try to read as many of them as I can. This is for two reasons. First, I like to browse for recommended artists and albums that I may have missed. Second, I like to see what albums other people put where and why. These are always so much fun for me that I decided to do my own list. So here we go, without further ado...

20.Peter Bjorn & John – Writer's Block
I haven’t heard this one too many times through, but it certainly is catchy, and who doesn’t like “Young Folks,” honestly? It has a good mix of indie pop, shoegazer, and lo-fi experimentalism that makes for a pretty good listen. Some of their songs have ended up on commercials, which prolly explains why bits of their songs (rather than lyrics) get stuck in my head.

"Young Folks"

Resign!

I know, this was done in the summer, but I still feel like posting it.

John Edwards and this notion of hypocrisy

Cross-posted at DailyKos

I haven't totally made up my mind on who I will support in the Democratic Primary, but at this point I'm leaning heavily toward John Edwards. My reasons are numerous, but they revolve around 2 overarching ideas: 1) his policies are specific and lead the country in a direction that I would like to see and 2) he's been in a presidential campaign before, and he's fought through all the way to election day, meaning that he would know the mistakes of Kerry/Edwards from '04 and has learned them. Add to this 2nd reason the fact that he's already been through the ringer the first time, so there isn't much that the GOP can throw at him that isn't either old hat or something he can easily refute...which brings us to the point of my post. The main argument against Edwards goes something like this: "He talks a good game on poverty but he gets expensive haircuts and makes a lot of money; ergo, he's a hyprocrite." The media, rather than focusing on his issues, has decided that his appearance and bank account are more important things to discuss. Let's go through the main three charges:

1) he got $400 haircuts

Yeah, so? Edwards' explanation is plausible. He's a popular guy who has to travel a lot and speak to many different places. They don't have time for him to go to his hometown barber, and they have someone cut his hair at hotels. The hairdresser people overcharged him, and he said himself that the fee is outrageous. Who hasn't gotten a bill for something and realized that they got overcharged?

2) he worked at a hedge fund and made money

Again, so? I'm not concerned about the $400,000+ that he made there because, as I will discuss below, he gave most of his earnings to charity. I'm not impressed by his "I took the job to learn about how markets work" excuse, but ultimately I'm not concerned. This is because he has not changed his stance on the taxation of such hedge funds. It would ONLY be hypocritical if he said that these organizations should still at as tax shelters and enjoy loopholes. He doesn't. Not hypocritical. Some tension maybe, but ultimately not enough to undercut credibility. Besides, I'll happily stack his few months of consulting work with a hedge fund against years of work fighting poverty both as an attorney and as the founder of UNC's poverty center. This objection does not give any credence to the idea that Edwards is hypocritical or doesn't really care about poverty.

3) he got $55,000 for a speech about poverty

This one has the potential to do the most superficial damage, not because of the facts of the case but more because of the way that the right-wing can spin it. In doing so, though, the right exposes its own stupidity and inability to make basic logical connections. In the link above, Carla Marinucci examines every speaking fee that John Edwards charged and found this one to be the most expensive one. The irony of asking for money to give a speech about poverty notwithstanding, the message here is that Edwards is hypocritical for taking money when he says that we should work to alleviate poverty in this country. Of course, FOX Noise Channel has picked up the story and run with it as ammunition for non-stop Edwards attacks, As News Hounds notes, quite well I might add, this just is not hypocrisy. I'll quote them: "If Edwards was going around advocating in favor of poverty, saying we should all strive for it and live simple, non-material lives as he lived the good life, THEN he would be a hypocrite. But what he does is advocate success and tries to show people how to achieve it, as he did." Even a junior varsity high school debater could see that. Edwards wants to fight to alleviate poverty, and his willingness to (cue dramatic music) get paid for working does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him human, like all of us.

Ultimately, these attacks are inconsequential for three main reasons.
1) Attackers focusing on how much money Edwards has made ignores how much money other candidates have made. This is particularly true if you look at the fact that Rudy Giuliani has made $9 million in speaking fees last year, charging over $100,000 per speech and even asking for a $47,000 private jet ride for one speaking engagement. Focus on Edwards' income is more hypocritical if you don't scrutinize that of other candidates.
2) Focus on how much Edwards has made is pointless if you fail to see that he gave almost $700,000 of his earnings to charity last year, including every cent he made from his book. That means even if you take all the money that he made from the hedge fund and speeches, he gave a majority of his earnings to charity last year. I'd say that works in his favor at least as much as (if not more than) the other things that the news media believe cut against him.
3) Finally, there is a more basic logical flaw here: that you have to be poor to care about or fight poverty. This is the most ridiculous of all the assumptions that people make. Edwards has used his position as a wealthy individual (who worked his way up from poverty and, as he's said himself, hasn't forgotten where he came from) to help those who need more help. In fact, he's in a better position to work to fight poverty if he has the resources to devote to it than he would be if he didn't have them. Being rich does not inherently mean that you don't care about poverty. Would we not believe Robert Kennedy for wanting to make poverty an issue in his Presidential campaign because he was a Kennedy? Of course not. It's ludicrous to think that Robert Kennedy didn't care about poor people because of his wealthy family.

Judge Edwards by his issues and how his actions actually effect them rather than trying to create a link between the two that is tenuous at best.

Great article on the Paul vs. Giuliani

Roland Martin, radio talk show host and occasional CNN commentator has a great comment on the surreal back-and-forth between Rep. Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani over the impetus for 9/11 in the 2nd Republican debate. Basically, the gist of the article is that, despite the "Rudy sure showed him" attitude that most have taken toward the exchange, we should be willing to consider what Paul said. Doing so doesn't mean that we love terrorists or we hate America. It actually shows a maturity that we need as a country. It's below.
______________________
Martin: Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated
POSTED: 9:26 p.m. EDT, May 18, 2007
By Roland S. Martin
CNN contributor

(CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.
Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.
That set Giuliani off.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Giuliani. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."
As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements.
Paul tried to explain the process known as "blowback" -- which is the result of someone else's action coming back to afflict you -- but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him.
After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.
First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul's rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.
Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.
Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.
What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
An excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country.
Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs.
As Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
The debate format didn't give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I'm confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today.
At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will.
Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers.