there were clouds in my coffee
clouds in my coffee
oh no slits, you've changed...older, slower, sloppy on a guit-piece. typical girls sounded boss as did newtown but oh the overall downer you sloshed about for monday night, a fact you would not let us forget. there were a lot of things you wouldn't let us forget, ari. things that between most EVERY song you took time to explain. y'all were punks, y'all rocked a reggae influence (evidently the first ever to combine the 2...i aint arguing lets just hear more examples and less explanations) y'all haven't been rehearsing a lot for your comeback tour. this kept feeling like seeing a friend's new band where you keep trying to get into it and feel every new song but the band has to struggle into each jam and only hits moments of grace. and the new songs well, they sound kinda dumb. lyrics were always a little silly and such is the punk rock wont but older stuff had passion and fire and immediacy to elevate it...right? i sound like such a silly cliche bio of ANY band in the new york or london scene of glorious 77. at least all you slits seemed to be having a good time...well almost all of you. but encoring by RE-playing shoplifting seems hella-weak, no?
all this bitchy moaning aside there was a cool thing! a band called lifepartners (i think, i lost track of openers cause usually i'm not paying much attn to this part of the show) rocked out with reckless abandon. pretty much everything they played pummeled about at breakneck paces through screeching and screaming noise only to unleash choruses of wailing melodicism. this type of shit can get you worked up with a quickness. they allowed moments of metallic shreddery give way to bursts of unhinged cacophony while the singer bashed his keyboard and screamed his face off. good stuff guys, bravo.
a talk radio douche here in boston got fired for calling a candidate for governor a "fat lesbian." naturally my inclination is to call this douche a douche but now i gotta hold on. all of a sudden i'm thinking that as unproductive as THIS type of political discourse is to me at first blush is it any reason to fire someone? how offensive must you be to be removed from talking to people? this is familiar territory for sure but it does not seem to elucidate itself any further case by case. more and more i feel like you just have to allow for idiots to speak (and walk, but the hives already made that case). there are times i am pretty downright offended by a lot of press releases from the white house but i'm not about to call for regulation or resignation (except maybe for donald rumsfeld but that has to do with MORE than his smug-asshole tv-personality. though they are inextricably entwined i.e. "you go to war with the army you have") joan baez once said she was indeed politically naive but obviously politicians were as well and so she had the right to weigh in OR start a school of non-violence as she pleased. word up joan but i gotta take the good with the bad there i think. so word up joan and word up rush limbaugh? rush got in trouble, but was not fired...[what does that fat fuck need to do to get FIRED?], for intimating that michael j fox exaggerates parkinsons symptoms when on tv. ok, that's a shitty and pretty idiotic thing to say but even in that i'm hearing the small voice in the back of my head saying "but someone should be ABLE to level such ridiculous accusations" as a society we should not attempt progress through silence i think. we need to hope that most people will be reasonable and see bullshit for what it is. but i know this is a tall order. how many idiots still think saddam houssein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks despite NOTHING for evidence? damn. what to do? i just cant think its a good direction to start limiting what folks can SAY in our country. i know its often unpopular but in a free society you must take the good with the bad. for any worthwhile and engaging blog there will neccessarily be a thousand This Year's Vlads to clutter up the information superhighway with a dirth of worthwhile information. who CARES if the slits have lost their fervor but steely dan seem to maintain (whoa, i feel like the oppenheimer of rock n roll right now) so basically lets not set scary precedents for slippery orwellian slopes. i know this gets said a lot and a lot of times i feel like people dont beileve it or think it through because its tough. no one said it was gonna be easy. this is to me like abortion wherein i will never formulate an opinion impervious to specific argument. but thats as it should be. there are questions of ethics which maybe cannot be legislated because of their inherent complexities. what are we gonna do? legislate broadly, with room for individual exceptions? what type of precedent does that set? what type of regulation is that? i had a dream where i made a case for abortion issues being like ethical dilemmas of saving one or many humans and how that is done, in as much as people have a gut feeling about these things but are unable to artiulate reasoning most of the time. i thought it was funny to have such a specific and logical dream even if the logic is a little faulty to the conscious mind.
i had a bunchy of strange dream sequences last night where i was aware of dreaming but dreaming within a dream. i was DREAMING that i was trying to not wake from a dream which i was controlling and enjoying. this must be what tom verlaine meant about the dream's dream. in the dream i kept waking up and talking to people about dreaming and dreams and control and then i had an outstanding visual hallucinatory dream where i was blown away by my unconscious mind's uncanny ability to combine and rapidly cycle through imagery. i was aware of dreaming the whole time and even then sad about the fact that i could never relate this to anyone and could never recreate it. so naturally i try both this afternoon. i'm pretty much an idiot. please, give me a talk radio spot. how come i keep coming back to this?
dont silence my ramblings
dont fence me in
dont think twice
its alright
clouds in my coffee
oh no slits, you've changed...older, slower, sloppy on a guit-piece. typical girls sounded boss as did newtown but oh the overall downer you sloshed about for monday night, a fact you would not let us forget. there were a lot of things you wouldn't let us forget, ari. things that between most EVERY song you took time to explain. y'all were punks, y'all rocked a reggae influence (evidently the first ever to combine the 2...i aint arguing lets just hear more examples and less explanations) y'all haven't been rehearsing a lot for your comeback tour. this kept feeling like seeing a friend's new band where you keep trying to get into it and feel every new song but the band has to struggle into each jam and only hits moments of grace. and the new songs well, they sound kinda dumb. lyrics were always a little silly and such is the punk rock wont but older stuff had passion and fire and immediacy to elevate it...right? i sound like such a silly cliche bio of ANY band in the new york or london scene of glorious 77. at least all you slits seemed to be having a good time...well almost all of you. but encoring by RE-playing shoplifting seems hella-weak, no?
all this bitchy moaning aside there was a cool thing! a band called lifepartners (i think, i lost track of openers cause usually i'm not paying much attn to this part of the show) rocked out with reckless abandon. pretty much everything they played pummeled about at breakneck paces through screeching and screaming noise only to unleash choruses of wailing melodicism. this type of shit can get you worked up with a quickness. they allowed moments of metallic shreddery give way to bursts of unhinged cacophony while the singer bashed his keyboard and screamed his face off. good stuff guys, bravo.
a talk radio douche here in boston got fired for calling a candidate for governor a "fat lesbian." naturally my inclination is to call this douche a douche but now i gotta hold on. all of a sudden i'm thinking that as unproductive as THIS type of political discourse is to me at first blush is it any reason to fire someone? how offensive must you be to be removed from talking to people? this is familiar territory for sure but it does not seem to elucidate itself any further case by case. more and more i feel like you just have to allow for idiots to speak (and walk, but the hives already made that case). there are times i am pretty downright offended by a lot of press releases from the white house but i'm not about to call for regulation or resignation (except maybe for donald rumsfeld but that has to do with MORE than his smug-asshole tv-personality. though they are inextricably entwined i.e. "you go to war with the army you have") joan baez once said she was indeed politically naive but obviously politicians were as well and so she had the right to weigh in OR start a school of non-violence as she pleased. word up joan but i gotta take the good with the bad there i think. so word up joan and word up rush limbaugh? rush got in trouble, but was not fired...[what does that fat fuck need to do to get FIRED?], for intimating that michael j fox exaggerates parkinsons symptoms when on tv. ok, that's a shitty and pretty idiotic thing to say but even in that i'm hearing the small voice in the back of my head saying "but someone should be ABLE to level such ridiculous accusations" as a society we should not attempt progress through silence i think. we need to hope that most people will be reasonable and see bullshit for what it is. but i know this is a tall order. how many idiots still think saddam houssein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks despite NOTHING for evidence? damn. what to do? i just cant think its a good direction to start limiting what folks can SAY in our country. i know its often unpopular but in a free society you must take the good with the bad. for any worthwhile and engaging blog there will neccessarily be a thousand This Year's Vlads to clutter up the information superhighway with a dirth of worthwhile information. who CARES if the slits have lost their fervor but steely dan seem to maintain (whoa, i feel like the oppenheimer of rock n roll right now) so basically lets not set scary precedents for slippery orwellian slopes. i know this gets said a lot and a lot of times i feel like people dont beileve it or think it through because its tough. no one said it was gonna be easy. this is to me like abortion wherein i will never formulate an opinion impervious to specific argument. but thats as it should be. there are questions of ethics which maybe cannot be legislated because of their inherent complexities. what are we gonna do? legislate broadly, with room for individual exceptions? what type of precedent does that set? what type of regulation is that? i had a dream where i made a case for abortion issues being like ethical dilemmas of saving one or many humans and how that is done, in as much as people have a gut feeling about these things but are unable to artiulate reasoning most of the time. i thought it was funny to have such a specific and logical dream even if the logic is a little faulty to the conscious mind.
i had a bunchy of strange dream sequences last night where i was aware of dreaming but dreaming within a dream. i was DREAMING that i was trying to not wake from a dream which i was controlling and enjoying. this must be what tom verlaine meant about the dream's dream. in the dream i kept waking up and talking to people about dreaming and dreams and control and then i had an outstanding visual hallucinatory dream where i was blown away by my unconscious mind's uncanny ability to combine and rapidly cycle through imagery. i was aware of dreaming the whole time and even then sad about the fact that i could never relate this to anyone and could never recreate it. so naturally i try both this afternoon. i'm pretty much an idiot. please, give me a talk radio spot. how come i keep coming back to this?
dont silence my ramblings
dont fence me in
dont think twice
its alright
posted by vw at 10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home