Here kitty

Come on, you guys, I need a little support here. Please tell me it's OK to laugh out loud for as long as I did after seeing this science fair project:

But enough about you

When I've had time to think it over, and maybe calm down a little, I usually am willing to do whatever is best for my wife, even at my expense. But in the moment, especially when I have not calmed down, I tend to pick me; I am unlikely to sacrifice any for someone with whom I am angry, as I lose any perspective outside the angry moment, blind to history and to the future.

Relatively inexperienced and therefore somewhat retarded, relationshipwise, I have only just come to understand what this means. It means that if we are to be honest here, I love myself more than anyone else, but that I know I should love the people close to me more than I love myself. That I will make the right choice, given time, means I even want to love them more. I have little hope of ever evolving toward perfection in that area, but at least now I know what I am.

I like puppies

Give Fox News credit; they are excellent at framing the debate, no matter how loudly they have to shout to do it. Here's a piece recapping an exchange with Fox Lite's Campbell Brown, who asks the stupidest questions I've regularly heard. I mean, say what you want about Bill O'Reilly, but you can tell that guy thinks through his questions in advance, to make them as insidious as possible. Campbell Brown just bulls into the intellectual china shop. In this instance, she continued criticizing the White House's 'attack' on Fox News, asking senior advisor Valerie Jarrett "Do you also think that MSNBC is biased?"

Perfect. Just the complete and utter lack of nuance that is Campbell Brown in a microcosm. Because there's no degree of things like bias. Putting aside for a moment the comparative biases of the two network's actual news presentations, as opposed to the nighttime talk anchors, I just love the question. Isn't MSNBC also biased? Awesome. Join us next week, when Campbell Brown takes an in-depth look at murder:

"OK, so you're for murdering everybody indiscriminately. And you, sir, you're against? So you admit you have a bias?"

HA!

I love when this happens.

Say YES to Rush & the Rams!

I want Rush Limbaugh to become a prominent investor of the St. Louis Rams football franchise – an owner, if you will. I want this to happen as much as I wanted Barack Obama to become president. Maybe I want this a little bit more.

This absolutely needs to happen. For America.

Limbaugh, a Missouri native, most certainly has the cash. The politically ultra-conservative radio showman is a hugely successful businessman. He’s a passionate football fan. He even has previous administrative experience working for a pro sports franchise. And he is a household name, and this helps a team draw attention and ticket sales.

The team needs help. It currently owns the league’s longest active losing streak (14). And ever since Rams wideout Ricky Proehl, proclaimed “The dynasty starts tonight!” to an NFL Films cameraman shortly before the kickoff of Super Bowl 36, St. Louis has a sorry 33-63 record with 2 playoff appearances, 1 playoff-game victory, and no championships. No dynasties, either.

Part of me believes this is simply too good to be true, that Limbaugh’s ownership bid is going to end before it begins. Opponents of the great man's politics are currently going batshit over this, and it’s clear the NFL doesn’t have any stomach for this type of publicity. And you know the shit is hitting the fan when the sports columnists start writing about politics and racism. This thing got ugly fast.

Sadly, all that might come out this is another hot, heaping serving of undeserved attention for El Rushbo, and more "proof" that a left-wing political/media conspiracy is out to crush him and his “dream” of owning a football team. Because, after all, the liberals are all trying to snuff out the American way of “capitalism, liberty, and rugged individualism” (Rush's words, not mine).

Why can’t there be room for El Rushbo in the owners' box? Shawn C. Carter, aka Jay-Z, has made millions of dollars churning out controversial rap hits (with lyrics like: “You know I thug 'em, fuck 'em, love 'em, leave 'em / Cause I don't fuckin' need 'em / Take 'em out the hood / Keep 'em looking good / But I don't fuckin' feed em / First time they fuss I'm breezin' / Talking 'bout what's the reasons / I'm a pimp in every sense of the word, bitch …) …

… and he’s co-owner of the NBA’s New Jersey Nets. Also, liberal political commentator Keith Olbermann is the pre-game co-host of NBC’s “Football Night in America.”

Let Rush own the Rams. Please. I’m begging.

Because just as Limbaugh proudly said he hopes President Obama “fails,” I want Rush to step out of his fabricated radio universe and once again fail at a real-world endeavor. I quote a paragraph from Charlie Pierce’s book, “Idiot America":

“The track record indicates that when the world he’s created comes into contact with reality, Rush fares rather less well. His TV show was a debacle. A guest shot hosting Pat Sajak’s late-night show ended with him nearly booed into the Pacific and sweating like a whore at high mass. And he had a brief stint as an NFL analyst on ESPN that foundered when he divined a liberal conspiracy to promote the career of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. … [Limbaugh] has since largely eschewed events not of his own devising.”

I want Limbaugh to be true to himself as an NFL owner. And I’d hope – no, demand -- that he:
-- Lash out at the league’s socialistic salary-cap system;
-- Treat us to a tirade about TV revenue sharing and how it’s a travesty how the worst team receives as much money as much as the best;
-- Fight to abolish the “Rooney Rule,” which smacks of a blatant affirmative-action agenda;
-- Convince fellow team owners to abolish the welfare state that is the NFL draft, which allows a team that did badly one year to get first crack at the best new players coming in;
-- Ridicule the minimum-salary guarantees that were established by the union;
-- Enlighten us, as an OxyContin abuser, how the NFL could maintain its strict drug-abuse policies.

Then let's see once again how this warped f*ckhead fits in.

At best, he’d be true to his radio character and horrify the NFL and the entire country, and his brief reign as an owner would end in disgrace. … You thought, the ancient “quarterback option” offense was back in vogue? Here comes the all-white roster, cornerbacks and all! ... Dallas vs. St. Louis: America's Team vs. White America's Team. ... African-American stars refusing to play for the Rams. Talented coaches and GMs staying away from the organization in droves. Picketers outside the stadium on game day! ... Yes, let Rush the radio character own a real team. Limbaugh would make Geroge Preston Marshall look like Branch Rickey!

(And honestly, how fun would it be to root for Limbaugh’s Rams to lose – no, get absolutely CRUSHED – every autumn weekend? I’m giddy at the thought.)

Or Rush the Empy Suit would exclude himself from the day-to-day workings of a pro sports franchise, prove himself to be the cowardly blowhard he really is by simply enjoying the view from the owners’ box, shutting his big stupid mouth, and having nothing to say about the "socialism" of the NFL ... and ultimately keeping with my favorite American ideal: the separation of politics and sports.

Either way, we win.

Another open memo

To: Ross Douthat, NYT
From: troy, Head of Development
RE: Your column, or whatever

Ross

Read your piece today where you join the chorus saying that the president should give back his Nobel Peace Prize, because you don't think he's earned it.

I have spoken with the president, and we are in agreement. He has promised to give back the award -- just as soon as you give up your column. If you can't figure out why, please see me.

Yer pal
troy

Open Memo

... to Michael Steele and everyone else who'll be 'weighing in' today on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize:

Hi.

In a vacuum, it would be fair to ask what the president did to earn this honor. But we are not operating in a vacuum. Your criticism, bound to last at least throughout the weekend, comes on the heels of celebration that Chicago did not land the recently awarded Olympic Games. The U.S. lost out on hosting the Olympics, and you dinks celebrated -- because it meant the president 'lost.' I swear to God, I saw for a second this morning that CNN was following up 'coverage' of the Nobel with a piece on the president's previous vow to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and with sound down, I honestly wondered whether CNN was warning the right about the president's intentions or citing the fact that DADT has not yet been repealed as a failure on the part of the president, and criticizing him for it. That is how crazy CNN and the other loud voices on the right have become; it seemed totally reasonable to me that CNN might be resorting to "Oh yeah? Well maybe he won the stupid Nobel Peace Prize, but he hasn't repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, has he?"

So the president's supporters could be forgiven for ignoring Steele and the rest of the freakshow, but again, in a vacuum, I think it's a fair question. So let me decipher this development for the banshees: The guy YOU got elected, the one whose decisions, torture authorization, warrantless wiretaps, and economic legacy you still support ... he was SO bad that the Norwegian Nobel committee gave the guy who succeeded him the prize just for not being the other guy. So, you know, maybe shut up for a minute, let the man try to fix the economy, health care, and everything else he inherited.

I saw a poll yesterday saying Republican congressmen had an approval rating of 29 percent. I mean, just stop already. It's insulting how stupid you must think we are that you assume we don't see right through you.

This is amazing

... and awesome.

Some Thoughts on The Beatles in Stereo

I ordered the stereo set before I wised up and ordered the mono set, which hasn't arrived yet. The following is partly about the stereo discs, partly about controlling expectations, and might prove helpful to anyone considering buying the stereo set, were they ever to come across this site.

The stereo mixes tend to be clearer than the 1987 editions, with better separation of instruments. It's possible to pick out more details. But I wouldn't say every 2009 remaster sounds mind-blowingly better than its 1987 counterpart. With the second disc of the White Album, much of Let It Be and Abbey Road, and the last few tracks on Past Masters II left to listen to, I'm finding that there are four categories:

1. The remaster sounds almost the same, but not as good. On the stereo set, this usually has a lot to do with the bass being less present, at least up through Rubber Soul, and even parts of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper.

2. The remaster sounds different, and not as good. Sometimes separation of instruments is bad. Sometimes the instruments teamed to create a sort of undifferentiated instrument track, so that you're hearing the bass and guitars and sometimes piano as one entity. Hearing all the instruments separated can be jarring; maybe in the future I'll get used to this as the standard, but for now, I'm not preferring it to the '87 issue. I'm finding this to be the case with some of the songs I like the most. I liked the unisound I got in '87 a lot, so change seems bad. Hey Bulldog is a great example of this, and so is the end of Dear Prudence.

3. The remaster sounds different, in an interesting way. Too early to tell if I prefer it to 1987, but the instruments I'm hearing anew make for new information, and it's exciting. I didn't know that John yawned in I'm Only Sleeping, and I didn't know that's what John's guitar was doing in I Saw Her Standing There; on the 1987 disc, it sounded like it only had one string. This tends to happen more with songs I like but don't love; I noticed it on several tracks on the White Album. My favorite example so far has been Hey Jude; it seems basically the same as the 1987 master, maybe a little warmer, but at the end, Paul's scatting is more audible, and the track fades completely out just a little later, so you hear more of it, which corrected my impression of his last scat on the 1987 version, the "I said a-na, na na na na," which I would have scored one way before but now see he's singing differently. Also in this category are the stereo mixes of albums formerly in mono, most notably For Sale, which I find interesting, but am not as enthusiastic about as I would be if the bass were more prominent.

4. The remaster sounds very different, and much better. Some of the old masters just seemed mixed poorly, or mastered poorly, or produced poorly. The two chief examples were I'm Looking Through You, where the keyboard was too trebly and harsh, and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, where the keyboard also seemed a little abrasive. In the latter remaster, the guitar(s) in the right channel are now louder, and the mix is perfect*; with the former, it just sounds like they maybe took some of the brightness off the keys, or the channel. Also a lot of Paul's Rickenbacker bass work in the second half of the output is now more audible, including the high end, which salvages even tracks that otherwise might not be preferable to the '87 masters. And toss in songs where voice or classical instruments are prominent -- Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, and most notably Blackbird, which I previously thought featured a subpar vocal performance. It's transformed on the new stereo set, I feel. On first listen, there aren't too many songs like this that are just in every way better now; Piggies comes to mind as another one.

So ultimately, I agree with the reviewers with early access who posted in the weeks before the stereo set's release: If I weren't a hardcore fan, I wouldn't replace all the discography right now. I might pick out a few favorites, especially Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and, I assume Abbey Road, and leave the rest until my kid lost or scratched my 1987 discs. But if you're crazy-go-nuts for the Beatles, there are enough improvements and enough interesting differences to make the purchase worthwhile. A person with much more time than I have might have a lot of fun mixing and matching between the 1987 and 2009 releases for a discography that combines the best of both.

* I keep saying 'mix,' so I want to go on record here that I know the difference between mixing and mastering.

Late update: Obviously, it was stupid to post this before I'd listened to everything. So let me add here that Cry Baby Cry remastered is a landslide winner, and that it's great to hear the detail on Come Together; if you didn't believe John was saying "Shoot me," you will now.

Beatle album touchstones

Facility with snappy heds? Yup, still got it. Anyway, I was musing on the different albums, and how some fans like some albums more than other fans do, and I wondered if there wasn't a song on each record that made the difference between 'I dig this disc' and 'BEST ALBUM EVER WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!??!' I mean a specific song, kind of the same song for everybody (in theory), you love it, you love the LP, and if you don't love it, you only like the LP. Hopefully it will become clearer as we go along. I've also got a working hypothesis that there's a second touchstone that makes the difference between 'I dig it' and 'No, really, you can borrow it. Return it whenever.' Let's find out! Warning: I don't think I start making my point until A Hard Day's Night, so bear with me until then.

PLEASE PLEASE ME
You gotta love: There's A Place. If you love this song, I mean really love it, you are a fanatic who would applaud a bag of 2-year-old Julian's poop. It's funny, many people who really love this record point to it as the best chance we have to hear what a Beatle concert would have sounded like, but this isn't the rockingest record.
No, really, you gotta love: Boys. If you can't enjoy the energy on this track, you're really just into the Beatles for the psychedelic stuff.

WITH THE BEATLES
You gotta love: Don't Bother Me. If you're willing to buy what George is selling here, this becomes a pretty deep album.
No, really, you gotta love: It Won't Be Long. No album with John singing full-tilt like this can be all bad.

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
You gotta love: I Should Have Known Better. If you're not the biggest fan of this song, A Hard Day's Night only has a couple of highlights. A lot of strong middling material, sure, but if you're making a mixtape, you're probably only putting the title track, Can't Buy Me Love, maybe If I Fell on it. But if you love I Should Have Known Better, then you probably love all of side A.
No, really, you gotta love: You Can't Do That. A standout on side B, and a nice close to the album with I'll Be Back.

FOR SALE
You gotta love: Baby's in Black. Because if you're all about this song, it's because of the harmony, and that means you're going to love Eight Days a Week, I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, No Reply, Every Little Thing ...
No, really, you gotta love: No Reply. The missing link between She Loves You and A Day in the Life.

HELP!
You gotta love: You're Gonna Lose that Girl. If you can get into this, you can probably get into The Night Before, and suddenly side A is looking really deep, flipping over for Ticket to Ride, and now you're one of the "Help! is really underrated!" people.
No, really, you gotta love: I've Just Seen a Face. If it weren't for the sweet melody and harmony, a lot of people would skip from Ticket to Ride all the way to Yesterday ... and a lot of them probably wouldn't even do that. Though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.

RUBBER SOUL
You gotta love: In My Life. I want to say Run for Your Life, which is a personal favorite, and also shows how the Rubber Soul sound sounds when the writing isn't top-notch, but for sheer numbers, I think they key is In My Life. People who love this song not only really love it but also are predisposed to dig Girl and Michelle (which the stereo remasters were very kind to, by the way), and now you've got a seriously deep LP.
No, really, you gotta love: You Won't See Me. Because if you like that, you like I'm Looking Through You, and of course you like Drive My Car and Norwegian Wood and Nowhere Man anyway, and probably The Word, so now you've got half of the album down. But everyone likes those songs. Is this conceit starting to make sense?

REVOLVER
You gotta love: Good Day Sunshine. I mean, I'm assuming there's no one who doesn't love Revolver, so the divisions are between those who would die for it, those who think it's the best music ever made, those who merely really love it. If you like Good Day Sunshine, you like For No One, and of course you like Eleanor Rigby, and that means you pretty much like everything on the disc.
No, really, you gotta love: And Your Bird Can Sing. Again, there are so many like songs on the record, like Taxman and Doctor Robert -- some worse, some possibly better -- that if you open up this vein, there's plenty of good stuff therein. I mean, I'm just assuming She Said She Said is a given.

SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND
You gotta love: Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Kind of the There's a Place of the middle period. If you love this, then whatever the Beatles are selling, you're buying. And when I say that, I don't mean it's not a good song. I mean that this song is not universally loved, yet it epitomizes their spirit and philosophy, in a way, so if you love this, then the group itself is right in your wheelhouse.
No, really, you gotta love: Getting Better. Tough to keep it going after the first three songs that open the record, but Getting Better gets it done.

MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR
You gotta love: Blue Jay Way. Maybe the most underrated song in the canon? As with the others, if you like this song a lot, the album gets a lot deeper, even if you hate half of Paul's contributions.
No, really, you gotta love: Baby You're a Rich Man. Sort of the latter-half version of a Beatle 'work' song, the songs John and Paul would sit eye-to-eye and write in an hour because they needed three more for the album they would finish recording that week. It's not inspired, but it's the two big kahunas throwing a hook each at the wall, and you know that can't be bad.

THE BEATLES
You gotta love: Blackbird. As before, if you count this among your favorites, it joins the roster of standouts from this release: Dear Prudence, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey, Helter Skelter, Revolution 1, Back in the U.S.S.R., Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da ... suddenly it's a seriously deep track listing, no?
No, really, you gotta love: Sexy Sadie. Clearly all John's idea, which makes it a poster child for the White Album, but you still hear everyone else's contributions.

YELLOW SUBMARINE
You gotta love: All Together Now. Because if you do, you love at least five of the six originals, and what record has a better hit ratio than that?
No, really, you gotta love: It's All Too Much. Seems like everybody does these days anyway.

ABBEY ROAD
You gotta love: Sun King. This can be an acquired taste, especially if you first listen to the Beatles as a kid, but once you drink the Sun King Kool-Aid, the whole second side is transcendent, and suddenly you're looking down your nose at a side with Come Together, Something, Oh! Darling ...
No, really, you gotta love: You Never Give Me Your Money. If you're not listening to this twice a day, you're missing the whole point of the record.

LET IT BE
You gotta love: Dig a Pony. As with other records, this song has enough sisters -- I Me Mine, I've Got a Feeling -- that you're really opening up Let It Be's world if you're down with it.
No, really, you gotta love: Two of Us. Without this, you probably only like Let It Be and Get Back. Maybe Across the Universe.

Still not winning them over, but maybe starting to at least play the same game

This post was going to be just a comment on a previous post. Worth rereading, for the context. Someone wrote in yesterday to respond to that post, and she commented as follows:

Hi Troy, I'm JaneLovesJesus. It's kinda' weird that I even stumbled upon your post ... it being months old and all and I'm sure we've both moved on to other things.
But, what the hey? Since I did stumble on it, I thought I'd respond.
One thing: Did you really think I was equating Palin to God? I mean, if I say "I like ice cream" and "I like freedom" I'm not equating ice cream with freedom, right? I may 'have faith' in Sarah Palin, in general. But please be assured that it is not that kind of 'Faith' -heh.

I also don't think she (or me, Lord knows) -- or any Christian -- has some sort of infallibility cloak around them so that every thing we do is necessarily 'God's will' or something. We -- perhaps not unlike you, read, think, research, go to Harvard sometimes (but not me!)ask questions, discuss, try, fail, and try again in the course of trying to seek truth and make wise decisions.

I can admit when I'm wrong. I used to be a liberal Democrat -- and I was a Christian back then as well. Let that bounce around in your head for a while. I do hope that you -- and all people -- find faith in Christ, because I believe it is true. I don't think Christians, even the right wing species, are the strawmen you seem to make us out to be.
Take Care, Jane

So I wrote the following response, which I tried post as another comment to the original post, but apparently I can get a little wordy, and Blogger didn't think the Comments were the right forum, so I repackage it here as a new post, which hopefully will draw JaneLovesJesus's attention better than the original intended comment ever could have. But enough, already. Here is what I wrote in response:

Hi JaneLovesJesus. I want to respond to a couple of your points, but more than anything, I want to thank you for taking the time to elaborate/clarify, and for the classy manner in which you did so.

I obviously take your word for it on equating your faith in Palin with your faith in God. My response here is only in answer to your question, did I really think you were equating God and Palin. And, I mean, obviously, the answer is yes, so the response is more to explain why. To wit: You talked about your faith in Him and in her in the same sentence. And you said you were 'at peace' over her decision to resign, which is a phrase I hear far more often describing one of God's decisions, as it were: death. As in, in case I am not being clear at all, someone being 'at peace' with their coming death. And lastly, you said you did not need to know Palin's plans. Again, this is a word often used in the context of God by people with Faith: knowing God's plan, or His plan for me. Again, totally willing to accept your clarification at face value, but hopefully you can see where it seemed to me like you viewed them in the same light. I never thought you equated God and Palin, but in the context of the original post on which you were commenting -- "why they hate her, and Him, and why she, and He, will be back" -- I assume you can see why I interpreted your comment the way I did.

But I do want to say this: Even if I got it wrong about your Faith and faith being the same, I think what I extrapolated is true of many others. I think if it would be possible to take yourself out of my post, you might see where my conclusions would maybe describe some other people we know.

But I think all that speaks to the part of my post I worded most poorly: I generalized. Again. Which isn't as bad as it seems, I don't think. I mean, the mindset I described apparently was not yours, which robs my words of much of any power of truth, but as I said, I think they do apply to a number of people. And it is those people I feel I understand better now that I read your words all those weeks ago, even if, ironically, you were not one of them. And so this was a good thing that came out of this, if I'm right; if I now better understand a number of people with whom I radically, fundamentally disagree, I don't see how that can be a bad thing. No meaningful discourse can ever take place between two people who fail to understand each other, I don't think, and I much prefer it to just thinking they're dumb. If I did that, the shortcoming would of course be mine, but again, I think it's at least a little understandable. Until I had that revelation, I assumed that people who had access to the same facts I did and yet came to the opposite conclusion (i.e., McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden) were incapable of using logic -- their brains, would be another way of looking it. Now I believe that some of those people employ logic in other scenarios, but don't believe logic is the most important quality to apply in major decisions in politics and life. I believe that they believe that the most important thing in the world is faith in God, and they make it a point to keep their own faith in him, and certainly God is infallible. My faith is not the same as the faith these people have, but I believe I understand it; I believe there is a kernel that is common to their faith and to mine. When life is at its most challenging, I am known to tell those I care about that the bad things in our lives happen for a reason. I believe that the people I was writing about two months ago believe this too, and maybe have a more complete worldview thought out, and for them, this translates to people like Palin being something like God's instruments on Earth. Palin believes the things they believe, and she is prominent in the political party they support, and so she cannot fail, because that would be a misstep by God. There must be some way to explain away what seems to us haters like a failure, to frame it as a good thing.

Again, I am not saying this is true of you. And I thank you for your words on that other site and on mine, which I feel have helped me become a fairer if not better person. But at the very least, I hope you will leave here knowing that really, none of 'us' hate Sarah Palin because God loves her. Most of us who hate her actually hate her because she rose to a prominent position in one of the two major political parties in this country and then snarkily belittled an opponent who as near as I can tell is smart, hard-working, talented, and progressive. He seems to me to want to put the country in a better position, he seems to know what that better position is, and to boot, he seems to believe a lot of the same things I do, to which I'm sure you can relate. After the previous two Democrat candidates for president (and certainly after his predecessor as president), he seems like a rare animal -- and Sarah Palin belittled him and spread lies about him and influenced what at times seems like half the nation to hate him, made his job exponentially harder after he was overwhelmingly (for a presidential election) elected, and now he can't address friggin' schoolkids without a large swath of the right thinking he wants to turn them into socialists. And she does it smugly and snarkily while stepping in crap every time I read about her. It's like the guy who sunk AIG coming into my office and criticizing one of my financial decisions. I'm not clear where she thinks she earned the right to speak on the topic and be taken seriously. The only place God comes into it is that a lot of us think she's using her faith in Him to manipulate these people I've been writing about. If she truly loved Jesus, we believe, it would show.

Ay, Papi

I wanted to write about David Ortiz's Great Steroid Adventure, but didn't before now for time constraint-related reasons that no one need give a crap about. But Papi said most of what I wanted to say, as excerpted in this Joy of Sox post:

These past few weeks have been terrible for me. People want to [mess] up your reputation ... People always want you to be a good guy, but at the end of the day nobody gives an [expletive] about you.

You know why? Because when this [expletive] came out, this news [the leaking of the positive drug test], no one –– I'm talking about no one in general –– stood up and said, "Let's wait to see what David Ortiz has to say. He's a guy who has been tested 18 times, and why would you believe any of this [expletive]" or "He's a guy who has been playing the game clean and let's wait to hear what he has to say." No. It was, "I'm not surprised he got caught. He did this, or he did that." David Ortiz has never been involved in any kind of trouble. So why do I have to be the bad guy? Why can't anyone stand up for David Ortiz? ...

All these [media members] I've been dealing with through the years, guys who have come to me and tell me, "You've made the difference in this clubhouse because you might be the only superstar here who makes our life easy. When we want to talk to you we can talk to you. You're a nice guy and you do nice things." All that [expletive] went in the garbage when this [expletive] came out. That hurt, bro. ...

It's something that before you come out with things like that, you should sit down and think about, hey, what if somebody did this to my kids or to a friend of mine or to myself or someone else that I know? It's not going to be a good feeling. People talking [bad] about me, I've heard it before. Even I come out and say it, [it's] "He better come out and say that he did it. He better come out." Come on, people. Why don't you say this guy, you know, he is different around here as a player. So let's wait to see what he has to say.

Like I always say, I come in one day, I'll go out another. When I get to be gone, I won't give a flying [expletive] about nobody, period. Nobody going to give a flying [expletive] about me. But I see where all the media and player situation here come from. That said, I thought it was different. It ain't, though. ...

I know that I've been tested 18 times. Nobody talk about that. Have you heard anybody talking about that? Nobody talk about that. But the bottom line is all people care about is selling bad news. Bad news is what makes the money, but sometimes you've got to sit down and think about things before you make that as a truth.

I came out and said what I said. If you want to judge me, it's on you. If you believe me, it's on you, too. It's confusing [stuff], but that's how it is.

I've seen nothing but attacks on Ortiz since the test result was announced. There seemed to be two stances: He did it, and I don't know if he did it but you can't be blamed for thinking he did. The attacks seem to be based on his not admitting guilt or providing more details or knowing every ingredient of every supplement he took at a time when whatever got him to test positive seems likely to have been legal in baseball, or at least not outlawed, if that somehow isn't the same thing.

I think it's fair to say there's no chance Papi will ever see this post, which is a shame. I wish he could know that one person out there trusts him. I admire how he's handled the whole thing, and I only disagree with one thing he said. He seems to feel that because he is unique as a player and as a Red Sox, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I think everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I'm not stupid or a liar; there's no denying that I trust Papi because I'm a Sox fan. But I'm not talking about trust, I'm talking about the benefit of the doubt.

I think fans and writers are so pissed off at having been fooled for all those years, they've swung back the other way. Why? Isn't that even more stupid? Barry Bonds was on something, Mark McGwire was on something, Alex Rodriguez was on something ... so Ortiz was too? He needs to just admit it so we can move on? Why? Because they're all baseball players? Now, anytime a player is reported to have tested positive, it's a done deal? No way a report is erroneous, a test is wrong, a player took something that wasn't expressly banned but had an ingredient that landed him on the list? That's fucking nuts. Let's sign all these people up to rejuvenate the newspaper industry, because that's exactly the evenhanded kind of treatment with which I'm looking to infuse my worldview. All Arabs are terrorists, all Ethiopians run fast, and me and the rest of the Tribe will be with you as soon as we finish counting our money. Are these people totally insane? Just because they don't want to give someone the benefit of the doubt, only to be proven wrong again, and feel foolish ... so the answer is to decide anyone suspected is guilty? Out of their frickin' minds. And we haven't even gotten to the complexity of PEDs and PED detection, especially the scientific aspects of it. Yet here are all these writers and radio hosts and radio callers and bloggers weighing in like they have the first clue, like Lady Sarah of the Death Panels.

I don't have the first clue either. It's why I don't leap to conclusions.

Why we hate her

I sign HJR28 Oppose Restricting Oil/Gas Devlp;we urge President to promote US resource devlp.Pretty simple, Mr.President & Congress:choose safe clean American energy&jobs or force our reliance on foreign countries;what more to ponder,oh wise Washington?Where's DC's common sense?

This is why. Not because she's Republican. Not because we "feel threatened by her." Not because she's smart and talented, obviously, and not -- my favorite -- because she's beautiful. She's not. I find her incredibly unattractive. If she were at all physically attractive, it'd be awfully hard for me to see it through the cloud of ick.

No, we hate her because of this. It's not "I believe this would be best," or even "this would be best." It's "Pretty simple, Mr. President and Congress," and "what more to ponder, oh wise Washington? Where's DC's common sense?"

Where to begin? Not with the fact that it's "O wise Washington," instead of "oh." What about the "pretty simple" -- because, you know, most political issues are supersimple. It's why everyone agrees on everything in this country. No, I guess you begin with the fact that the 'politics of personal destruction' that she said made her resign couldn't be much better typified than braying sarcastically about someone else's intelligence in the course of disagreeing with them over policy. So let's begin there, but please, let's make sure to leave enough time to discuss the idea that this woman is calling ANYONE's intelligence into question. There are bugs smarter than her.

I've learned a lot from following her twitter stream. I've learned a lot about how Alaska is the greatest, and is in a strategic position on the globe, and how it epitomizes everything great about the U.S. And I've learned that every single issue can be broken down to right or wrong based on whether it's good for Alaska. She doesn't even hide it, half the time; she says the president or the U.S. Congress or someone should do whatever it is she wants because it is good for Alaska. I've learned that the ethics complaints (except maybe the one she initiated against herself? No, she seems to be against that one too) are an abuse of the system, which, let's face it, who's a better judge of that? And I've learned that this country is more divided than it has been since the Civil War. If we should laud those who would speak civilly to the other side and try to reunite it as much as possible, we should at least note when someone prominent does the opposite. There have been citizens convicted of treason whose actions caused the U.S. less harm than have Sarah Palin's.

I love this woman

That's right, baby; now that you're quitting, you can REALLY let your freak flag fly!

Great day w/bear management wildlife biologists; much to see in wild territory incl amazing creatures w/mama bears' gutteral raw instinct to protect & provide for her young;She sees danger?She brazenly rises up on strong hind legs, growls Don't Touch My Cubs & the species survives & mama bear doesn't look 2 anyone else 2 hand her anything; biologists say she works harder than males, is provider/protector for the future Yes it was another outstanding day in AK seeing things the rest of America should see;applicable life lessons we're blessed to see firsthand

Remember; smart AND talented. I love the idea of the 'nuts all nodding their heads as if they know exactly what she means.

That's not right. It isn't even wrong.

I also love all these tweets where she selects a quote and acts like it means she's right:

"Criticism is something easily avoided by saying nothing, doing nothing, being nothing."Aristotle Don't fear it;it means u make a difference

Hey, Governor: Aristotle just called. He said that he didn't mean that criticism is never founded. Especially criticism of you. And that you're dense.

Translator! Can we get a translator over here?

Woodward ... Bernstein ... Palin:

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

Yes! You sure showed us! We would rather talk about your personality than policy, but you taught us the error of our ways -- by framing the column in terms of "what is foremost on [your] mind."

Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Oooh! A little rubbing it in! If only we hadn't elected an intellectual lightweight, but rather someone who'd shown that they could understand issues! Someone like ... oh, I don't know ...

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Electricity bills skyrocketing equals raising taxes? If that's how the ardent liberals will understand supply-side economics, count us out.

We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats don't make laws. People do.

The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

When? Also, you don't have to tell us when the writer is a Republican. The disagreeing with everything Democrats want to do, along with blaming on Democrats the sins of previous Republican administrations, almost always gives it away.

Why we'll never win (them over)

As a prefacetory aside, I'm aware that Sarah Palin's defenders -- especially those who don't actually know her -- think there's something wrong with those of us who can't drop the whole Palin thing and 'leave her alone.' They're missing out on a key truth here: The Palin thing has allowed her supporters to talk freely in a manner that we Palin attackers can understand in a way we never could understand before. Their points are no longer abstract, but rather start with specifics and then allow us to extrapolate in the abstract. In this way, the Palin thing, as it plays out, reveals important new information about this country and one of its biggest rifts. Anyway:

Andrew Sullivan's people lead us over to this ... uh, thing. It seems, on its face, to be breaking new grounds in crazy:

Sarah Palin loves God. God loves Sarah Palin.
And that is why they hate her...and Him.
And why she -- and He -- will be back.

Also, we look down on them because they didn't go to Harvard, and they look down on us because we don't know what God wants, while they, of course do ... blah blah blah. OK, I guess it's chiefly the beginning where new ground is broken. We hate God because He loves Sarah Palin. And we hate her because she loves Him. Or because He loves her. I'm not gonna lie, I didn't read this thing too closely. You mostly want to maintain a distance in instances like this.

No, the part where I really got enlightened was in the comments. I went there expecting to be entertained, but first I was set straight. Turns out I was only half right when I wrote that Palin supporters say the preposterous things they say because they don't want to admit they're wrong. There's way more to it, and 11:36 on Saturday night, someone wrote in under the moniker JaneLovesJesus to explain it to me:

it's weird, but maybe because of her faith in God, and MY faith in God, and my faith in HER, I feel at peace and energized over her decision to resign. Even though it would have never been something I would have expected. I don't have to know Sarah Palin's plans. I know she is not going to back down from the greater fight for America and for freedom.

Honestly; you could spend days thinking about what JaneLovesJesus wrote. The parts where she equates Palin with God are awesome in the most literal sense of the word. They deserve your consideration.

But I can't get over her main message in her first sentence. It's not that JaneLovesJesus and like thinkers have some issue with admitting when they're wrong. It's the conflation of that with faith that's the problem. Such people do not choose McCain and Palin over President Obama and Vice President Biden after thinking the issues through and making a decision. Their candidates stand for what they (their supporters) believe in. Like God. The decision is made for them. It is turned over to God (or, more commonly, I imagine, Jesus). Evidence that McCain/Palin was the wrong decision, of which many of us can't help but observe there is no shortage, would be evidence that God got it wrong. That's why JaneLovesJesus is 'at peace' (you're feeling my massive self-restraint here, right? Please say you are) with Sarah Palin's decision. It's because God is making sure everything Sarah Palin does is the right thing (or, possibly, because Sarah Palin believes in God so much, she can't help but do the right thing every time). I'm not 100 percent clear on why we can't trust God with the actual election outcome as well, and with controlling what the current administration does, but I imagine it has to do with the president being immoral, as the post's author noted.

But Palin's God-fearing. And so is JaneLovesJesus. If you criticize Sarah Palin in any way, you are challenging God's decision-making or his power -- or JaneLovesJesus's faith in Him. It is times like these that I wish this site had a bigger readership, to increase the chances that I could entreat a logician to diagram all of this. But I can tell you this much: When the right appeals to the fundamentalists on the basis of morals, not policy, they're locked up. Republicans can botch the economy, foreign policy, or whatever you want. As long as they're against abortion and gays, they'll have the fundamentalists sewn up, and if you try to free those Christianists up through logic, they're going to view it as an affront to their faith in Jesus. And that's why we'll never win. Move to Amsterdam if you don't like it.

Make it stop

Two-parter! That's right, a thought so deep and worth sharing, 140 characters couldn't quite cover it:

Anxious for Fairbanks radio visit tomorrow re: 2nd Amendment! We have rockin' surprise guest. Candidly, I love radio vs some newspapers bc......"Most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not, by my definition, they can hardly be good newspapermen" W. Cronkite

No, that's not true. You love radio vs 'some' newspapers because you're fucking stupid. Probably too stupid to read. Probably two and a half years of having people read you every document to which you had to affix your signature (via stamp, or possibly 'X') wore out your precious little ears, and that's really why you're resigning. Maybe.

I'm sorry. I hate to be that ugly. I'm just so tired of it. Like she even has the first fucking clue what Cronkite meant. Like she doesn't prefer radio because talk radio is where you can seek out people who agree with you and listen to them rant for three hours without having to exercise your mind the way a good newspaper (or good radio) can make you. More to the point, I guess, she 'loves' radio because she can talk only to preapproved hosts who are known to be sympathetic, and speak about the topics she wants to speak about, unedited and un-fact-checked. No need to get nervous, like when you're facing off against a journalistic behemoth like Katie Couric, or hard-nosed, objective reporters like Charles Gibson. Not that they're in newspapers. But you get my drift. Ah, I gotta go lie down ...

I'LL give you some 'personal destruction' ...

On Time magazine's Web site, for Christ's sake:

You're going to see Obama increase those taxes on small businesses — whether he admits it today or not, he's going to. One thing reporters aren't asking the Administration is — it's such a simple question and people around here in the real world, outside of Washington, D.C., want reporters to ask — President Obama, how are you going to pay for this $1 [trillion] or $2 [trillion] or $3 trillion health-care plan? How are you going to pay off the stimulus package, those borrowed dollars? How are you going to pay for so many things that you are proposing and you are implementing? Americans deserve to know what the plan is to fund these things, health care included.

1. It's President Obama. I believe "Mr. Obama" is also permissible. Give him the respect you don't deserve, the respect he earned merely by keeping you the hell out of the White House. The thought of you in the White House still gives me chills, to the point that I don't even think they should let Alaskans go on the tour.
2. YOU? YOU are going to talk about what reporters aren't asking somebody? In the course of the same "interview," no less, where you are asked whether quitting your job will "catapult" you or, alternatively, is more of a self-sacrifice? Like it's got to be one of the two? YOU are going to tell us what Americans deserve to know, about answering "such simple questions"? You, who refused to even say what you read? The only time you've ever told the truth to the public was by accident.
3. I almost forgot the best part: Sarah Palin, implying she has the intelligence to know what Barack Obama will do -- and that he's lying about it. The arrogance. I can't even ...
4. I really think you should stick to Twitter. I keep going back and forth on this. I want to hear more, I don't want to hear more, I can't look away, I can't bear to look ... maybe if it were only on Twitter, the rantings of the psycho on the street, instead of in the guise of an interview, which suggests discourse. She has at least that much of a point: The same 'reporters' who are interviewing her would be doing a service to this country by trying to pin down the president on how 'he' plans to pay for the health care plan. Then they wouldn't be giving this freak a forum, and my country would be a better place.

New rule no. 1

The twit:

Kotz trip gave Labor Commish & me opp to speak to young AKns re resource develop. jobs we want AKns to have 1st shot bc work ethic is there

Dear Sarah: If there should come a time, perhaps many years in the future, when it becomes OK for you to speak on the topic of work ethic, we will let you know. Yer pal, troy.

We should get us one of those

Palin tells ABC news how much better things would be (for her) if she were V.P. All those ethics complaints she was forced to try to answer, eventually 'driving' her from the governor's office?

I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out.

Yeah, but she's smart and talented, right? I mean, that's what I keep reading on the internet.

This is up there with her interesting, um, interpretation of the First Amendment, chronicled elsewhere in this space. Yes. What we need around here is a 'department of law.' It would look at things we got charged with and automatically throw them out.

I think we have to consider that it's at least possible Palin thinks she's living in, and was running for the vice presidency of, some other country. It would explain at least some of it. But I salute her for her first real contribution to this country. I plan to refer to the Department of Law all the time now. Remember on Seinfeld when Elaine was offended that the restaurant hired only waitresses with large breasts, and informed the owner that she was sure the "department of, you know ... whatever" would be very interested? Who knew Elaine was qualified to run for V.P.?

There's almost no chance I won't be weighing in on this more as it continues to sink in. All those defenders saying she's smart, and all those other defenders who said it didn't matter how smart she was, just because she wasn't 'elitist.' Maybe the group she was trying to reach was 4-year-olds? Because I'm trying to think who else I know besides my kid who doesn't know better. A 'department of law' at the White House that can dismiss charges. Anyone finds the interview where she said we could have won in Iraq by bringing in our crack brigade of magical fairies mounted on unicorns, lemme know.

Just awesome

From deadspin. I'm too dumb to make it display right, so just click through to get the whole image:

I'll shut up if she will

From yesterday's statement:

The response in the main stream [sic] media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”.

... which you instigated when you started accusing people of 'pallin' around with terrorists.' How might things have been different had you tried out classy, and kept your criticism of now-thank-God-President Obama to legitimate issues?

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change ...

Yeah, you know, I read the whole statement, but I must have missed the candid reasons.

I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America.

This profile in grammar courage is just for Megan.

She claims to want to know why she's held to a different standard, and she's just dumb enough that the claim might be legitimate. Then again, she also claims to be some kind of Christian, but her bible apparently doesn't include this quote attributed to Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Had she conducted herself with any kind of dignity, she might be seeing some come back her way now. Instead, she launched personal attacks, tried to belittle her opponent (I'm giving her credit probably due her speechwriters here), and really launched the "politics of personal destruction" into a whole new level. A level where, by my observation, abortion-performing doctors and ... well, guys who work security at museums commemorating the Holocaust die. If she doesn't think she helped to incite those murders, she's dumb or deluded.

It's been fun to see her fight back against her 'critics'; less so 'liberal critics' now, because liberals (and we moderates) aren't attacking her, we're just laughing at her. The attacks are coming from the right-wingers who were taken in last year but are determined they won't get fooled again. You know, our girl's parents get reached for statement from time to time, but no one seems to ask them what I'd like to ask them. One of the most important lessons my parents taught me was that it's usually not everyone else who's wrong; if everyone else disagrees, it's usually you who are wrong. Why didn't her parents teach her that?

Crazy to the end

It would be fun to speculate why Sarah Palin announced her resignation as governor of Alaska today. I refrain not out of compassion, but because if I've learned anything, it's to not try to get inside that woman's head. I might never escape. And anyway, this isn't the place to go for substantive discussion of politics. This is the place where we pick apart her words and mock them.

Even that could take all day, so I'll let alone the Alaska history lesson and the complexities behind her preposterous treatment of the ethics charges and say:

Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.

What? She's been accused of answering reporters' questions? Bizarro says "Me very confused."

... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out.

Unlike, you know, quitting.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks ... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe) ...

What, like to Indiana for pro-life rallies? Or to Washington, D.C., for pro-life events? Or to New York for ...

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports ... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket ... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

Yes; victory. I think that's what we all associate Sarah Palin with. Especially after her quitting. And, you know, dragging the Republican ticket down even farther last fall.

It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what's best for Alaska.

Pretty sure that's the first true thing she's said since she came to the public's attention.

Now, despite this, I don't want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL "climate change" that began in August ...

I actually know what this means; she's-- nah, I got nothing.

In the words of General MacArthur said, "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

For our part, we promise not to follow.

Can I do her epitaph? I mean, she's dead, right? There's no way even she could think she can run for anything after not finishing out her first term as governor. OK, good. Sarah Palin epitomized what went wrong with the Republican party in so many ways. She was the end-product; even if you lacked the patience or knowledge to say where it went wrong, you could point at her and say "Well, I can't put my finger on it, but certainly we can agree that this isn't what we were aiming for." And she stayed true to that to the end. Her resignation speech was a textbook example of how the GOP has reduced itself to talking points. The talking points don't have to be true; they merely have to be words that supporters can repeat to soothe themselves. I mean, they're not convincing, but they're not for us, whether 'we' are liberals or moderates or even non-partisan. (That 'even' was for you, Sarah!) No, the talking points are purely for the talkers. They can repeat the points to the rest of us and go home convinced we were merely not open-minded enough to hear them.

It seems obvious to me, but enough minds I respect (like Andrew Sullivan's) continue to ask, almost daily, what these Republicans and right-wing media freaks can be thinking when they say the description-defying things they say. They seek an explanation but they premise the whole thing on honest discourse. Which confuses me.

So no, no compassion here, even if any of the Trig accusations were real. Both while and after losing the election, Sarah Palin tried to make it as difficult as possible for the opposition to govern the country. She actually made honest discourse more scarce than Bush did. She might be as hard for the Republican party to recover from as he was.

Bachmann-hysteria overdrive

I mean, I can't swear she's consciously and actively engaged in a contest with Palin, but we can all be forgiven reaching the conclusion.
This on the climate change bill the House passed Saturday:

But what is worse than this is the fact that now because of this underlying bill, the federal government will virtually have control over every aspect of lives for the American people.

Does that include grammar? Because if the government can clean up the way Bachmann speaks, I might be willing to sacrifice my Twinkies or light spanking or whatever it is Bachmann thinks they want to take away from me.

I've also reached a new hypothesis about the representative for the lucky state of Minnesota: Is it possible she just is lazy? If she overreacts like this to passage of a climate change bill, it seems reasonable to assume she would oppose, if more temperately, just about any bill. She clearly thinks the role of the federal government is not to make law or, you know, govern. And yet she's a U.S. representative! Why did she become one? What is it she thinks she should be doing with her time, short of campaigning for re-election? If they come for me in the night, you'll know I was on to something with this.

Me, I smiled on Nov. 4

The twit:

Smile AK! Signed Adult Dental bill (HB 26) over weekend. Now more AKns can get checkups & prevent costly dental problems before they begin.

I don't know. That sounds dangerously like socialism.

The world is full of energy

The twit:

EIA estimates US energy consumption will INCREASE by 44% in next 20 yrs. We MUST utilize our local energy sources.

Oh, totally. Either that, or, you know, maybe rein in our energy consumption a little.

'More and more frightening'

Congrats to Shep Smith for putting this together.

The guy who's not Shep Smith leads Shep Smith over to the blogosphere, and Shep Smith follows him, but he's already connected the dots. Sure, bloggers have said some crazy shit, and I don't restrict that to right-wing crazyblogs. But 'socialist' -- that didn't start on the Net. That started with McCain, and Palin, and Bachmann. Certain politicians acted in concert with the crazyblogs to whip people into a frenzy, and by the time McCain looked startled at his rallies and scolded his supporters that no, Barack Obama was a good man who happened to disagree with him, it was too late. Seemingly normal people were already yelling 'Kill him!' at the rallies of the Republican candidate for President of the United States. And the lunatic fringe was way too far out there to reel back.

I am not blaming any politicians directly for the madness at the Holocaust Museum, or the shooting of Dr. Tiller at church. Neither of those guys was a sane and rational man expressing his views coherently. (Although if you wanted to blame Bachmann, I'd probably hear you out for a while.) And I don't want to politicize this too much, not today. But McCain and Palin, they pandered to people like this. The last president, he spoke in code to people like this. I take no issue with serious criticism of liberal or Democratic politicians, and I don't claim that the right has a monopoly on the unserious criticism. But the unserious criticism of Republicans doesn't get people killed. Al Gore and John Kerry were far from inspirational in their campaigns, but they weren't going for a frenzy of hatred. If Bachmann and the others get what they want, there will be a great, great deal to mourn on that day.

Purple prose of Cairo

Just kidding. I'm a fool for wordplay.

I've read the President's speech, and a lot of synopses of the reaction to it, mostly courtesy of Andrew Sullivan. I thought the speech hit all the right notes. I also think that it's sad that this is such a big deal. As Obama himself said, these were only words. Yet they reveal the clearheaded, honest, and right thinking of which no president has been capable in my 38 years. Some wanted more constructive proposals, and in theory, so do I. But high-level meetings, more than this speech, are probably the place for them. And like so many things about this president, our past shame makes his baby steps bigger than they seem to his detractors.

Most of the criticism I've read -- especially from Israeli hard-liners -- misses the point tragically. It betrays the expectations the speakers had of the speech going in, and they come off like some idiot parent making noises of disgust when his kid strikes out in his first Little League at-bat. More, it betrays a complete lack of nuance. Nuance was the subtext of the speech; it was a call to see things in shades of gray, if not color. Many of the critics you can read today failed to answer, showing a lack of some combination of imagination, integrity, fairness, and intelligence. I now see why Sullivan is spending column inches writing off the Israeli hawks; they sound increasingly like the wingnuts in this country. The wingnuts are draining their party of supporters; fewer identify themselves as Republicans every day. Politicians and commentators in Israel, which I once supported blindly, would do well to pay attention, in the interest of survival, if they can't manage any interest in fairness.

Eyes wide crazy

I love what Dick Cheney's done with September 11. He's come a long way. Lemme see if I've got it right: President Obama will be to blame for a future terrorist attack if he doesn't follow the Cheney playbook religiously. But before anyone even thought to blame the administration that was in power ON September 11, 2001, Cheney's minions found a way to blame that attack on the PREVIOUS president. So Cheney and his li'l buddy deserve credit for every day there wasn't another attack, but no blame for the day there was an attack, and President Obama would deserve blame if there were an attack tomorrow, even though he's been president for fewer days than Cheney was president as of September 11.

I say a second attack would be Cheney's fault, and not for all the logical reasons related to how the previous administration alienated fundamentalists even further. No, I bet somewhere out there, a terrorist is about to go rogue just to shut Cheney up. I'm American, and I can barely stand to hear him speak.

Priorities, people

Twit:

Pleased Congress passed bill permitting loaded firearms in nat’l parks & wildlife refuges, as subject to state law.

Yes, I think we're all pleased that the House and Senate took time out of their day to worry about this issue. My favorite part:

The provision was included in legislation placing new restrictions on the way in which credit card companies deal with consumers.

I love my country.

This probably should have stayed a draft

If you read many sites/blogs with comments, you've probably been exposed to the 'first' phenomenon. There are commenters on your more popular sites (and by more popular, I mean more popular than this one, anyway) who take great joy in leaving a comment that notes that they are the first to comment. Often, that's all the comment says. And often, the comment is not in fact the first comment. There were no comments when the commenter started writing 'First!' but somehow, in what little time it took to click OK or whatever, someone else with something more substantial to say snuck in there.

Some of us readers find this phenomenon infuriating. Over at the Onion A/V Club site, not only is a not-first first (or 'firstie') mocked, there's a meme going on where anyone who succeeds or fails at firsties is wished a combination of cancer and AIDS. One commenter there started his own parodic blog devoted solely to his travails as a firstie. Point being, unlike everything else that makes me crazy beyond all reasonable proportion, I'm not alone on this one. But I was just wondering, after seeing a firstie on Joe Posnanski's awesome-beyond-all-reasonable-expectations blog, why. Why do I hate firsties so much?

Then I figured it out. Firsties are like climbing a mountain (in my case, a small mountain) and reaching the summit and as you prepare to take in the view, you see some jackass has written 'First!' with white spray paint on a rock. It's not clear what benefit the jerkweed got from doing it, but everyone else who utilizes the site (or mountain) is going to be at least a little bit annoyed by it.

Now I can move on to more pressing issues, like why the people in front of me walk so slowly during rush hour. I mean, it's called 'rush hour,' you know?

What does that even mean?

Late on this one, but too good to pass up. The president said last week that he'd like Justice Souter's replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court to be capable of empathy. Michael Steele, the RNC chairman and my first choice to entertain at my kid's birthday party, went on the radio to respond:

Crazy nonsense empathetic! I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness!

Now, lest you accuse me of taking the quote out of context, allow me to assure you that I would LOVE to see the rest of what he said. I am seriously considering quitting my job and following this guy around, because I think he's just getting to the really good stuff now, and I think it's gonna bring all the thrill of a volcanic eruption without any of that pesky ash.

But -- and maybe this is because I'm taking a break from rewatching The Wire and am in the middle of season 1 of The West Wing -- doesn't talking to the public about the president like that make Steele what my dad would call "a total dink"? I don't know, probably there were Democrat politicians and officials who said worse about the last president; I don't want to make it sound like that party's gonna wear white at its wedding. But "Empathize right on [President Obama's] behind"? Is that really necessary? Can we have Leo go talk to him?

The only other excerpt from the linked story: "I don't need some justice up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition and shortchanging me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law."

If that doesn't sum up the Republican party right now ... well, wait five minutes, and someone else will, in even more hysterical fashion.

From the twit

Yet ANOTHER ethics complaint filed & dismissed! Unfair to AKns that state dollars are wasted dealing w/these malicious complaints...

Agreed. Of course, if you'd just admit to all the crap you did, people could stop charging you with stuff you didn't. And chin up: So many of those state dollars come from other states' pockets, it's like free entertainment.

Sourcing

I mean, she's a journalism major, right? At like, five different colleges? That's plenty of exposure to the fundamentals. So why would she use her tweet ...

Outraged Obama's budget includes major cuts to missile defense programs, when N. Korea refuses to abide by UN regs.http://tinyurl.com/c56xyh

... to link to a CNN story that concludes by noting that she wants money for it? Also, when she's all crazed, marking up which parts of the stimulus package she's willing to accept and which parts she isn't and which parts don't, technically, exist but, in her expert opinion, should, do her advisors just glance at each other uncomfortably, like Hitler's in his last days in the bunker, or are they egging her on like Tiny Elvis's coterie?

I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation….

Is that like when Bush supporters point out that we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, all smug as if they just proved something? If someone can point me to evidence as to precisely how Alaska's proven 'invaluable,' that'd be great. I'm not saying we wouldn't retaliate if North Korea sent missiles at Alaska, but if Ol' Crazysides keeps yapping, wouldn't we at least want to think about it?

Also, I'm not saying the 'cuts' are non-existent, like when Obama was panned by the right a month ago for 'cutting' defense when, in fact, he just wasn't increasing the defense budget as much as the 'nuts would have liked. I'm merely saying that when I google 'obama cuts missile defense,' the only links I get are right-wing crazy sites and the CNN piece. Which is ironic, since when it comes to Alaska, Sarah Palin is a socialist.

Oh, wait, I found the press release, and I think the CNN story left out the best part:

Today, the Defense Department said it wants to study the merits of ground based missile defense before it commits to an expansion at Fort Greely. This is absolutely the wrong message to send to our adversaries.

This is art, people. Are you even appreciating it while she's still alive? Maybe we can divert the missile money to the National Endowment for the Arts so she can get the showing she deserves. Although anyone in North Korea doing a Web search for 'obama cuts missile defense' is already getting 'absolutely the wrong message.'

Better use a lifeline

Straight from the twit's mouth:

Due to intense spring floods, I've declared a disaster for Interior AK; this opens doors for govt agencies to better assist AKns in need.

Are you sure? I bet there're all sorts of strings attached. I bet the damn government's gonna want you to use that disaster money to, oh, I don't know, handle the disaster. YOU GONNA LET THEM TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR MONEY?!?!?

Who's got a link to one of those maps that shows how Alaska and other 'red states' get the most federal aid per tax dollar, and the blue states pay for it?

Another Beatles scoop

Our second this week! Man, if people were actually reading this blog, we'd be famous.

Anyway, the internet is bemoaning the news that guitar controllers for the Beatles' Rock Band entry will be sold separately, reportedly at $99 each for John's Rickenbacker and George's Gretsch. They believe the $250 entitles them to more than just the game, Paul's Hofner, Ringo's drums, and a mic stand.

But if you go to the game's home page ... I don't know. That looks like John's Epiphone Casino to me. Wouldn't that mean it's in the bundle as well?

Straight from the twit's mouth

I stand by grave concerns fed pkge prohibits opportunities for AK to develop, eg. require AK to adopt new energy codes to accept more funds.

Dear Sarah

Good to hear from you. I'm really enjoying this new phase of your madness. Before, we were at the mercy of the media to hear more crazy. It was very frustrating, relying on the media! Although hey, who'm I tellin', right?

Yeah, so the rest of the people who aren't crazy asked me to try to explain this to you. I said "Hey! I don't speak Stupid!" But they insisted I was the man for the job. So here we are.

OK. I understand your grave concerns, and your standing by them. I think we should all stand by our grave concerns. If we do not stand by our grave concerns, well, where do we stand? Am I right? I honestly can't tell. Anyway, from what I can make out, you are still having trouble with this whole federal stimulus thing. It's funny, I remember some Southern governor going through this. He wanted to do the same thing you're trying to do now: accept only part of the stimulus allotment for your state. I remember the president saying it wasn't going to work that way. It was in the papers and everything. I guess you no longer read "Oh, all of them." Because now you're pulling the same stunt, saying you don't want the funds for the state energy office.

Oh, sorry about linking to the Times there. Don't worry, looks like they won't be around much longer anyway. The media, huh? Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em:



Yeah, so anyway, you're saying you want the stimulus money you want, but not the stimulus money you don't want. Or something. No, wait, I know. You're saying you don't want the energy money because you don't want to strengthen your building code, because ... uh, because it's not in Alaskans' common or individual interests of ... um ...

You know what? Fuck it. I got no idea what your problem is. You make no sense. I've been trying to treat you with kid gloves here, like a mentally disturbed person who somehow got hold of a gun (get it?), but I gotta come clean here, you're all over the road. You're a freak, and most of what you do is geared to framing yourself as some sort of right-wing hero. I mean, the Democrat president wants to give you money, for fuck's sake, and you're turning it down. Face it: You're a contrarian wack job.

But lemme try to explain this to you: You can take the money. You can turn down the money. You cannot take some of the money. You should not take the money and bitch about it. That'd just be bad form. But what you absolutely cannot do without looking like a complete idiot is take the money and bitch about the giver of the money mandating that you adopt a new building code if you want even MORE money!!!! I mean, you might've heard, there's a recession or something going on. People are hurting. Remember how mad they were about their money going toward banker bonuses? It was kind of a big deal, here in America. They don't really want to hear about your not liking what few conditions are attached to your taking their money.

Also, they want to know if you've returned the clothes yet.

And I don't think it's meant as a euphemism for 'condom,' either

On twitter, our girl announces an initiative that she supports "... to protect (Alaska's) daughters ... ." The link she offers is to an Anchorage Daily News story about the initiative, which "make[s] it illegal for teenagers to get an abortion without telling their parents."

I've long come to terms with the fact that Sarah Palin and I speak very different breeds of English, and so I ask the following question completely devoid of snark: From who or what would this initiative 'protect' Alaskan teen girls?

Beatles, for sale (again)

Haven't seen this anywhere. Just noticed that the remasters are up on amazon.com. I had been wondering where they'd be priced.

Prices:

Please Please Me: $13.99
With the Beatles: $14.99
A Hard Day's Night: $13.99
For Sale: $13.99
Help!: $13.99
Rubber Soul: $13.99
Revolver: $13.99
Sgt. Pepper: $13.99
Magical Mystery Tour: $13.99
White Album: $19.99
Yellow Submarine: $14.99
Let It Be: $13.99
Abbey Road: $13.99
Past Masters (33 tracks): $22.99

Box sets don't seem to be listed.

Who has a guess as to why Yellow Submarine and With the Beatles are a buck extra?

More Palin please!

Oh, yay! She's got a twitter feed! You'd think she's got someone writing this stuff for her, but here is her first post ...

This is my official Twitter feed - from here I’ll provide updates on issues concerning Alaskans. Learn more about AK at www.alaska.gov.

So we're establishing that the purpose of the feed is to write about issues concerning Alaskans. Because, you know, she's the governor. Of Alaska. Remember?

So yeah, a feed by an Alaskan, for Alaskans. But then her very next post ...

AP gravely misquoted my staff, saying I 'changed my mind' on the stimulus package. For accurate info, go to http://tinyurl.com/c7v84t.

Contradicting one sentence with her very next sentence? It's her! It's really her! Whew! Baby, you had us worried there! I thought maybe this would really be about Alaskan issues, and not just a chance to put more of your 2012-focused nonsense out there! Thanks for always being there for us, Sarah Palin. Even if 'there' is in outer space.

On Connecticut State Senate Bill 349

SB 349 would change possession of small amounts of marijuana from a misdemeanor (punishable by jail time) to an infraction, which would be merely ticketed.

I followed some link and sent my state senator, Toni Boucher, an e-mail asking her to support SB 349, which has passed the senate's Joint Committee on Judiciary. Senator Boucher wrote back and relayed her testimony before the Committee against the bill.

What follows is my response to her, on which I CC'd Governor Jodi Rell.

Toni

Thanks very much for writing back. I respect that your views differ from mine. It's why I voted for the other guy in November. But the way I understand it, you represent me nonetheless. So I hope you will not impose your own views on the state, but rather aim to represent the majority's will. You might know that a Quinnipiac University poll this year indicated that 58 percent of Connecticut voters favor SB 349.

It would be even better if I could sway you by illustrating where your thinking is, in my opinion, misguided. Since you were kind enough to relay your views to me, I offer the following rebuttals.

You cited a couple, many years ago, who lost their son to drugs. You do not say that the drug on which the son overdosed was marijuana, and I imagine that's because it wasn't the drug on which he overdosed. To my knowledge, marijuana has never killed anyone. This, of course, is not true of alcohol or tobacco, two legal substances. In fact, you call marijuana a gateway drug, and say it was identified by the parents as "the real killer," which again I assume is merely evidence that it was not the real killer. Perhaps you also favor illegalization of alcohol and tobacco, as any 15-year-old can tell you that these are the gateways to marijuana use. Most people against marijuana legalization don't favor outlawing cigarettes and alcohol, and therefore are guilty of hypocrisy. Perhaps you are the exception; I have not researched your views. But the state of Connecticut has not outlawed alcohol or tobacco; it instead has satisfied itself with laws governing the two substances' use.

The same should be true for marijuana. It is not physically addicting, the way tobacco and alcohol are, and so there is no evidence that there would be health issues -- especially where marijuana is potent enough to deliver its effects with minimal substance ingestion. If one could feel the effects one desired from as little alcohol or tobacco, there would be no health issues with those substances either. I'm afraid any studies you cite are going to be of extremely limited value; most are conducted or sanctioned by the federal government, which outlaws marijuana in the first place, and what few remain relied on government-supplied marijuana, which of course is not representative of the many strains available to users. Have the studies looked at both indica and sativa strains? For what other variables have these supposedly scientific studies accounted? I also find that critics draw highly spurious conclusions from these studies, like the 40 percent statistic you cite. If marijuana increased the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent, there would be a great many college graduates with mental disorders in this country. Assuming relationships to be causative is a fallacy that extends far beyond drug studies, but it certainly is a popular one among anti-marijuana lawmakers.

There absolutely are people who have other issues -- motivational, organizational, social -- related to their marijuana use. Marijuana does not cause these issues. It sometimes enables them. A shut-in who doesn't answer the door because he's high would be a shut-in without marijuana. And he likely would seek some other substance instead -- doubtlessly a more dangerous substance, since marijuana is the least dangerous of illicit substances. Rather than trotting out a story of a couple, many years ago, who lost their son to some other substance, I suggest you talk to more marijuana users. You can find many of them achieving at the highest levels of our country -- although some are not free to admit their use, thanks to stigma of the drug's illegal status -- as well as working at the nearest Burger King. Talk to former users, too, including those who say their lives were miserable while they used. Many of them will tell you that they came to realize that the drug made it easier for them to avoid working out the issues that challenged them, but that in most cases, when they stopped smoking, they still needed to work out those issues. And while you're talking to them, see if those serious and costly long-term health effects you presage have come to pass. I also would love to the the sourcing for much of what you cited in your testimony to the Joint Committee. Sixty percent of Connecticut drug treatment center admissions are for marijuana addiction? I'd love to hear more about that.

You worry that SB 349 will overturn decades of progress "combat[ing]" marijuana use. How are you measuring that progress? Is progress combating measured in arrests? In prison sentences? This kind of "progress" is easy to achieve. Do lower percentages of the population use marijuana? Impossible to measure, of course, since respondents would need to admit to lawbreaking. But anecdotally, I can tell you there has not been significant progress of anything. I can direct you to any number of peers who use habitually, and others who did for years before stopping. They are not in hospice care, or mental wards. If you are against adults' being legally allowed to smoke marijuana, I assume you are not aware which of your friends and family are smokers (although if you did know, I imagine you would prefer they be ticketed for marijuana use, and not put into the criminal system). I urge you, for the purposes of researching this issue, to widen your circle. And the percentages of college kids who smoke marijuana today will not be appreciably lower (if, in fact, they're not higher) than they were 20 years ago when I was in college. So I wonder what kind of progress you had in mind.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the statistics and purported evidence you cited in your testimony. But it is not easy. It reads like the boilerplate claims I've seen elsewhere so many times from other lawmakers who were closed on the issue. These "facts" fit their argument, and these were the "facts" they were sticking with. I hope you will consider it your responsibility to seek out the other side of the story. I suspect it would lead you to question some of the "evidence" that seems so compelling to you now. I believe you owe it to yourself, and I am certain you owe it to me and the rest of your constituents.

Yer pal
troy

No, seriously -- shut the @&#^ up

She's baaaaack!

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter," said Bachmann. "And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

Note that her sentence construction is starting to resemble our girl's; "... back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then ..."? Even? Also, it might not surprise you to learn she's wrong. I don't think that's an interesting coincidence.

Ranking the monsters of rock my damn self

I came kind of late to rock. I remember bringing in a cassette to fifth-grade art class and playing a song on it for the whole class in one of those school cassette players you remember if you went to elementary school in the '70s. Why art class? And why did the teacher let me? I suspect the answer to each question is the same: She hated me. The song was 'Stairway to Heaven.' I don't really remember anyone in class thanking me for showing them the light. I do remember my ears turning red, so red I didn't need a mirror to see it.

This glorious debut had a couple of follow-ups. In sixth grade, I found my Dad's 'The Best of Bread' cassette, with the song 'Freedom.' I didn't get mocked too much for playing it at recess. No, I got mocked more for playing the tape on this candy apple-red 'portable' stereo that was like a Walkman, except I insisted on bringing in the speakers that came with it. A little unwieldy. In seventh grade, when we had to do a project for The Fellowship of the Ring, I went to my guitar teacher's basement, where he had a four-track and makeshift studio, and wrote and recorded a song called "The Road Leads to Nowhere." I still don't get why that wasn't a good idea, although I do still remember everyone laughing at me so hard, I slammed the door shut on my finger running out of there. Hurt like hell, too.

By the end of high school, I was listening to Metallica and Celtic Frost and M.O.D. and S.O.D., so I'd more or less caught up, having already found Rush, AC/DC, Zeppelin, and of course the Beatles. I pretty much stopped listening to all of the classic rock bands except the Beatles at one point or another, although Zep and the Police certainly got airings from time to time, but recently, I've been filling in the gaps in my collection. Last month, I downloaded my favorite Cheap Trick. A couple of nights ago, I found some free Kinks on emusic. And I was thinking of how the Kinks had aged, and that got me thinking about how I perceived the bands back when I was a teenager and how I perceive them all now. Of course, if I want to post about it, I have to rank them. So here's one man's thoughts, in reverse order of how much I want to listen to them today:

16. Kiss

Never liked 'em.

15. Black Sabbath
Then: Seemed a little scary. I mean, even when I was listening to Celtic Frost and looking for the scariest metal I could find, I was a little afraid to check out Sabbath.
Now: Well, of course I eventually checked them out, and they're still a little scary; Ozzy would scare me if he were a temp working for me. I find that I really like what I really like by them, but they don't go as deep (in terms of quantity of quality songs) as I would like.
Songs I still like: Supernaut; Fairies Wear Boots

14. Yes
Then: I liked these guys. The musicianship was impressive, and I have a prog side to me. I liked 90215.
Now: Seem a little silly.
Songs I still like: I thought I liked "I'm Running" off Big Generator, but it turns out not so much.

13. The Kinks
Then: Seemed like a kind of generic classic rock band. I liked them OK, liked some of their songs a lot.
Now: I still admire the songwriting, but the music hasn't really aged well at all; it sounds very dated now. Don't like the arrangement, don't like the production. And that tends to make Ray Davies sound silly, even on a potentially good song like 'Living on a Thin Line.' Dave Davies is woefully underrated though.
Songs I still like: Tired of Waiting for You

12. Queen
Then: Wasn't interested.
Now: I admire the musicianship, and the production was good. And you've got to give it up for the ambition of Freddie Mercury. Most songs don't really resonate for me, though.
Songs I still like: Under Pressure

11. The Who
Then: Liked 'em fine. I really liked some of their songs a lot. I owned tapes of theirs, although you kind of had to back then. I remember really loving "Athena."
Now: They're definitely passe, and I can mock a Who fan as well as the next guy, but I suspect I'm due for a renaissance with them, where I'll pick up some of their hits. But my strongest feeling about them is that they had no heart.
Songs I still like: The Seeker (helped by its appearance in 'American Beauty'), and I guess Join Together and Who Are You.

10. The Doors
Then: See The Kinks. I liked some of what they did a lot, though. But overall, they weren't anything special.
Now: I came to be a big fan in college, bought all the discs, and when they were on, they were on. But I don't have anything by them now, and don't plan to.
Songs I still like: Peace Frog; Soft Parade

9. Cheap Trick
Then: See The Kinks. Liked them well enough.
Now: I really like their best songs. They really influenced the distorted-guitars brand of power-pop that I love, bands like Sloan. They just don't go all that deep. I've come to want to be entertained for every second of a song. I don't want it to take two minutes to warm up. I don't want it to go on one verse and chorus too long. And I don't want a pedestrian rock song. I kind of feel like too many of Cheap Trick's songs fit that last category; I only bought four of their tracks. In their favor, they aged great, especially if you like "Tonight It's You," from their '80s resurgence, which I do.
Songs I still like: Dream Police; Surrender; I Want You to Want Me; Tonight It's You

8. Rush
Then: Had to respect the greatness in the writing, and the proficiency of all three guys, but I found some of their stuff a little goofy, like Yes's. I mean, 2112 and 'The Trees' were a little silly, right? Or was I missing something?
Now: I really like the songwriting, which turns out to have been a big influence on my own, especially their '80s hits. But the production sounds a little too '80s. The 'classic' '70s stuff aged better.
Songs I still like: The Big Money; Time Stands Still

7. AC/DC
Then: Mostly I just gave props to Back in Black, which was a really deep album. I mean, they buried "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution," you know?
Now: I later came to love the Bon Scott stuff, but after a while, a lot of it sounds a little pedestrian, bar band, and formulaic. I have all the Bon Scott stuff, but only because I got it free off Napster eight years ago.
Songs I still like: Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution; Highway to Hell; half of Powerage

6. Pink Floyd
Then: I was a huge fan of the "Wish You Were Here" album and selected stuff off The Dark Side of the Moon, and LOVED "Comfortably Numb" and "Hey You." But I only listened to what I heard on the radio.
Now: I guess they're kind of a band I'm keeping in reserve, that I can always get more into someday when I've got no one else to listen to. But I wouldn't mind getting my hands on "Wish You Were Here" again. Not really into the Syd Barrett stuff, or the The Division Bell era.
Songs I still like: Breathe; Shine On You Crazy Diamond

5. Van Halen
Then: I mean, any teenage guitar student is going to be into Van Halen. The first song I ever was taught to play was "Dance the Night Away," which I don't know why, because I'd never heard it at that point; my teacher chose it, probably because it wasn't hard. I eventually got into all of it, especially lesser known stuff like Van Halen II and Women and Children First.
Now: They lost me when Sammy came aboard. I still like the old stuff that got second-tier radio play, but only have it from Napster, and don't listen very often. Still sound great though; it's usually the writing that damns the weaker Halen.
Songs I still like: Little Guitars; Beautiful Girls

4. The Rolling Stones
Then: I mean, I knew they were bigger than The Kinks, but I wasn't much more impressed with them than I was with The Kinks. You know?
Now: I admire their oeuvre and everything, but after hearing everything I needed to hear 100 times, well, that was enough. When people say they like the Stones better than the Beatles, I get confused, and tilt my head, the way a dog will look at you.
Songs I still like: Gimme Shelter; The Last Time; Miss You; Only Rock 'n Roll

3. The Police
Then: One of the first albums I ever got was "Synchronicity." I really didn't hear any of the early non-radio stuff until college ...
Now: ... when I got really into it. Great songwriters, and great players, and it still holds up today. They wrote more songs that I like than a lot of other bands, but not everything they did was up my alley.
Songs I still like: Can't Stand Losing You; Next to You; Don't Stand So Close To me; Driven to Tears; Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic; Does Everyone Stare; On Any Other Day; Synchronicity I

2. Led Zeppelin
Then: Maybe my first love. The Beatles, I had those stupid Red and Blue albums, and you really miss out on the color that makes the Beatles great if that's all you're hearing -- no "And Your Bird Can Sing," and "For Sale" is just woefully underrepresented. On the other hand, I had the first five Zeppelin records in high school, and thought they were the balls; I listened to Houses of the Holy every night when I went to bed for like two years.
Now: More than anyone else above them on this list, they stand up. Still sounds great to me, although I know they've been remastered. The songs were just excellent, and diverse for classic hard rock.
Songs I still like: Immigrant Song; Celebration Day; Since I've Been Loving You; Battle of Evermore; Misty Mountain Hop; Song Remains the Same; Rain Song; Over the Hills and Far Away; Custard Pie; The Rover; In My Time of Dying; this is getting a little ridiculous, isn't it?

1. The Beatles
Then: I knew what I was hearing was amazing in terms of sheer quantity of quality, but I really think you've got to own them to get them. On those two greatest hits records, you got stuff you didn't like (well, I didn't like) like Michelle and In My Life instead of Hey Bulldog and, you know, pretty much anything great from Abbey Road. (I think the White Album choices are awful too.)
Now: Well, I mean, they're the freakin' Beatles, now aren't they?
Songs I still like: Um ...