If the tables were turned, the response would be "Too bad. That's just the way it works."
Danica.
And the complaints also ignore the fact that she has less mass for leverage, which has some effect on performance as well.
Has there ever been a complaint about a small man?
Get over it.
If it is a consistent issue and she wins all the time, then perhaps take a look at the sort of equalization they use with jockeys.
But until said advantage is clear, get over it and address the real issue - having to share the field with a woman. Oh, boo-hoo.
When is the movie going to get made?
.... Well, that was a nearly contextless rant.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Microsoft Woe
Well, heck.
I had my primary hard-drive fail me last week - really bad timing as I've got a delivery date for a video project on the first of June. Luckily none of my data was lost, but all my programs were! The process of recovery (several steps there, including self-driven attempts and finally getting someone else to look at it); buckling in and getting a new hard-drive; formatting and replacing the software has all taken close to a week - and I'm still not done.
It makes me crazy.
And 90% of my woes surround Windows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear the Apple advocates now saying that one word that they tend to pull out that they think means "You know better, but you're just too stubborn to do anythign about it." You know the word I mean. And it's usually delivered in a slightly condescening sing-song voice: "Ma-a-a-ac."
I'm not going to get indepth into the great Coke vs. Pepsi debate here. But I will admit that Mac's tendency to have less immediate crashing problems is appealing. But it totally ignores such things as the annoying non-modularity of it (which of course is a major reason it has less crash problems); the general counter-intuitiveness of the interface (an admittedly arguable point, but I have never found Apple products to be as easy as they we're proclaimed to be - and I was once a devoted user, my girl-friend still owns one and when I use it I want to tear it out of the wall, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance); and when a Mac does fail, it's inscruitable error messages are utterly infuriating... just to name a few beefs I have with Mac.
But I really want to air my beefs about Microsoft.
I discovered that the version of Windows that came on my hard-drive was apparently cracked. Am I surprised? No. Before XP, the work-arounds were pretty simple. But by now the updates to Service Packs 1 and 2 are really irritating (actually, in my lack of awareness of the specifics, I am not sure that it's even possible to do SP2 yet - I figure it must be, but it's taken me two days just to think I have SP1 worked out, and SP2 is still just this monster T-Rex tearing apart others of my fellow cave men on the horizon.)
Now, it is obvious that MS would like my money. And the money of anyone else who pirates their precious, next-to-mandatory operating system. I get that. But the extremes they are going to are getting pretty outrageous.
I believe that making sure that there are some extra hurdles for those who do want to take advantage of them is necessary - to stop the 'honest thief.' But to make the hurdles so close to totally exclusionary seems to me to be counter-productive. All it serves to do it make people less pleased with the products as a whole - and therefore less likely to bite the bullet and actually buy down the road. Also, preventing the community at large from being a more up-to-date, stronger, community is counter-productive. Strengthening the whole, strengthens the individual, and vice versa.
They make a ridiculous amount of money just on corporate (and other professional) installations. And it's relatively easy to keep the businesses in line - much easier to track them legally. Why not just make sure that they are all in line and be thankful for all the personal users who actually dish-out for the OS?
I am hoping that soon I will be in the category of 'business who is easier to keep in line' and then I'll be happy to pay for an honest install of Windows. I'd even do it now, just to save the grief and hassle I'm currently experiencing, but; 1) I just spent money I can barely afford on a new HD - which of course started this problem - a bit of unfortunate circular logic and; 2) This experience is souring me more to MS and actually making me want to say 'fuck-you' to them even more - also a bit of circular logic, snowballing in this case.
God, I wish I actually liked how Macs work.
I had my primary hard-drive fail me last week - really bad timing as I've got a delivery date for a video project on the first of June. Luckily none of my data was lost, but all my programs were! The process of recovery (several steps there, including self-driven attempts and finally getting someone else to look at it); buckling in and getting a new hard-drive; formatting and replacing the software has all taken close to a week - and I'm still not done.
It makes me crazy.
And 90% of my woes surround Windows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear the Apple advocates now saying that one word that they tend to pull out that they think means "You know better, but you're just too stubborn to do anythign about it." You know the word I mean. And it's usually delivered in a slightly condescening sing-song voice: "Ma-a-a-ac."
I'm not going to get indepth into the great Coke vs. Pepsi debate here. But I will admit that Mac's tendency to have less immediate crashing problems is appealing. But it totally ignores such things as the annoying non-modularity of it (which of course is a major reason it has less crash problems); the general counter-intuitiveness of the interface (an admittedly arguable point, but I have never found Apple products to be as easy as they we're proclaimed to be - and I was once a devoted user, my girl-friend still owns one and when I use it I want to tear it out of the wall, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance); and when a Mac does fail, it's inscruitable error messages are utterly infuriating... just to name a few beefs I have with Mac.
But I really want to air my beefs about Microsoft.
I discovered that the version of Windows that came on my hard-drive was apparently cracked. Am I surprised? No. Before XP, the work-arounds were pretty simple. But by now the updates to Service Packs 1 and 2 are really irritating (actually, in my lack of awareness of the specifics, I am not sure that it's even possible to do SP2 yet - I figure it must be, but it's taken me two days just to think I have SP1 worked out, and SP2 is still just this monster T-Rex tearing apart others of my fellow cave men on the horizon.)
Now, it is obvious that MS would like my money. And the money of anyone else who pirates their precious, next-to-mandatory operating system. I get that. But the extremes they are going to are getting pretty outrageous.
I believe that making sure that there are some extra hurdles for those who do want to take advantage of them is necessary - to stop the 'honest thief.' But to make the hurdles so close to totally exclusionary seems to me to be counter-productive. All it serves to do it make people less pleased with the products as a whole - and therefore less likely to bite the bullet and actually buy down the road. Also, preventing the community at large from being a more up-to-date, stronger, community is counter-productive. Strengthening the whole, strengthens the individual, and vice versa.
They make a ridiculous amount of money just on corporate (and other professional) installations. And it's relatively easy to keep the businesses in line - much easier to track them legally. Why not just make sure that they are all in line and be thankful for all the personal users who actually dish-out for the OS?
I am hoping that soon I will be in the category of 'business who is easier to keep in line' and then I'll be happy to pay for an honest install of Windows. I'd even do it now, just to save the grief and hassle I'm currently experiencing, but; 1) I just spent money I can barely afford on a new HD - which of course started this problem - a bit of unfortunate circular logic and; 2) This experience is souring me more to MS and actually making me want to say 'fuck-you' to them even more - also a bit of circular logic, snowballing in this case.
God, I wish I actually liked how Macs work.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Political Triage over Political Harikari
Well, Damn.
STV was voted down.
I suspect that a public that was more aware of the issue would have voted in favour. Oh well.
But it was close - more than close, really.
Way more than 60% of the ridings voted in favour by a simple majority - requirement #1 met.
Over 57% of the total voting public voted in favour. Less than 3% shy of the 60% required.
Clearly a sizable majority of the province wants change. In fact it seems pretty clear that STV is acceptable to most or all - 60% majorities are intended to protect minorities, which in this particular referendum is an illogical concern as the STV system is designed to benefit minority opinion.
The government could push STV through without much flak as it stands. The voice of the province is pretty clear. But it's dubious that they would as it doesn't serve their power position much if at all. But ignoring it would be political suicide so they have to do SOMETHING.
Curious to see what and how.
The simplest answer would be to push it through - the process has been started, the mechanics of the system are worked out and the people are in favour by a demonstrable margin.
But probably deciding upon some sort of watered down electoral reform that the parties come up with that doesn't undermine their position as badly will be the answer - - and what kind of reform is that?
Another referendum, or another Citizens Assembly is probably too much effort and cost, and too scary to let go the control of their fate yet again.
STV was voted down.
I suspect that a public that was more aware of the issue would have voted in favour. Oh well.
But it was close - more than close, really.
Way more than 60% of the ridings voted in favour by a simple majority - requirement #1 met.
Over 57% of the total voting public voted in favour. Less than 3% shy of the 60% required.
Clearly a sizable majority of the province wants change. In fact it seems pretty clear that STV is acceptable to most or all - 60% majorities are intended to protect minorities, which in this particular referendum is an illogical concern as the STV system is designed to benefit minority opinion.
The government could push STV through without much flak as it stands. The voice of the province is pretty clear. But it's dubious that they would as it doesn't serve their power position much if at all. But ignoring it would be political suicide so they have to do SOMETHING.
Curious to see what and how.
The simplest answer would be to push it through - the process has been started, the mechanics of the system are worked out and the people are in favour by a demonstrable margin.
But probably deciding upon some sort of watered down electoral reform that the parties come up with that doesn't undermine their position as badly will be the answer - - and what kind of reform is that?
Another referendum, or another Citizens Assembly is probably too much effort and cost, and too scary to let go the control of their fate yet again.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Should we just start blaming Steve Moore now?
Well, Canada lost at the IIHF Worlds of Hockey.
A Silver will have to do. And the Czechs need to be given acknowledgement as a damned good team. (Actually all four of the last teams were the four teams that should have gone into the final four. Sweden, Russia, Czech and Canada. The US was merely a close 'also ran' to those four.
But what would have happened if Canada had had Todd Bertuzzi? Would Bertie have been good for that extra punch in the final game? My money is on 'yes' - partly as a Bertuzzi true-believer, and partly out of a need to blame someone.
So who exactly do we blame for the loss then? Well, Canada really seemed to lose the game in the third - both the first two periods were solid (despite the first goal fairly early on), but the third was full of mistakes and a lack of discipline. The team is culpable there, for certain.
But if Steve Moore wasn't such a knob from the start - read: his hit on Naslund and it's fall-out that I've already weighed in on at length - then Bertuzzi could have been playing today. Canada could have won.
Really.
A Silver will have to do. And the Czechs need to be given acknowledgement as a damned good team. (Actually all four of the last teams were the four teams that should have gone into the final four. Sweden, Russia, Czech and Canada. The US was merely a close 'also ran' to those four.
But what would have happened if Canada had had Todd Bertuzzi? Would Bertie have been good for that extra punch in the final game? My money is on 'yes' - partly as a Bertuzzi true-believer, and partly out of a need to blame someone.
So who exactly do we blame for the loss then? Well, Canada really seemed to lose the game in the third - both the first two periods were solid (despite the first goal fairly early on), but the third was full of mistakes and a lack of discipline. The team is culpable there, for certain.
But if Steve Moore wasn't such a knob from the start - read: his hit on Naslund and it's fall-out that I've already weighed in on at length - then Bertuzzi could have been playing today. Canada could have won.
Really.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
And yet another cheap excuse for a post...
The following is my response to the message I posted in my last post: "More on STV."
Apologies for not reformatting either into a more readable structure - busy day.
Thanks for your considered response... I was beginning to think that I may never hear anything back! (I hope I've finally got this posting as something other than 'guest' - I'd like to have SOME sort of identity.) Over the past few days I've been making a point of discussing this with virtually everyone I cross paths with. Still the balance of opinion seems to be woefully under aware of the issues - even some of the more educated and erudite folk I know have little real understanding of the processes involved. I've had to explain numerous times how the system works - at varying levels of detail depending on the interest and political capacity of the people involved. (More on that in a moment.) But generally - and this could be a function of the segment of society I typically associate with - it seems as though the weight of opinion is in favour of reform... actually I can't recall anyone declaring that they were intending to vote 'no.' As I have talked about it more and explained all I can on both sides of the issue, the more and more convinced I have become that I too will be voting 'yes.' In fact, I would pretty much call it a certainty at this point. My main concern remains that people are under educated on the issue - not that there is much to be done either way with merely six days and counting to go. My gut tells me that disenfranchised voters who don't understand the new system are more likely to vote 'yes' as their knee-jerk, thinking that it's a strike against the Liberals (which it may or may not be, depending on how you expect the system to work in the end.) Pass or fail, I take issue with blind voting. Drives me nuts. To this end I've made a point of trying to properly represent both sides of the argument when discussing the issues with people. (I would suggest that it is this effort that has actually swayed me solidly in favour.) A further concern I have is how spoiled ballots will be counted. With a double majority needed to pass the referendum, spoiled ballots could seriously favour the 'no' side. I spoke with an Elections B.C official just last night in quiring about the counting process and so forth. He could not tell me (read: 'he did not know', not the more sinister 'he wouldn't tell me') whether the 60% of the total or the 50% in any specific riding was of total ballots or of valid ballots. If spoiled ballots are counted to towards the total, a spoiled ballot is then as good as a 'no' vote! Potentially good news for the 'no' side. I can see a situation where voters are handed their referendum ballot (which aparently they have the option to outright decline) and respond with a "What!?! There's a referendum and it's been so poorly publicized that this is the first I've heard about it!? Well then, I'm expressing my outrage by spoiling this ballot." Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and the scenario laid out should be of no concern to the detractors as it works entirely in favour of the 'no' side of the debate. One more thing that I would like to respond directly to - hopefully in aid of getting more clarification:
Quote:
Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself. This level of reform strikes me as a once in a generation opportunity. Any other reformative measures (Recall, for example) are more along the lines of tweaks to the existing structure. (Indeed, Recall itself needed to be tweaked.) It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect that any electoral process we agree to is going to be a sweep. There is simply no way we will get it all right the first time around. (Of course getting it 'ALL right' will never be possible, simply due to varying opinions, but for the sake of argument let's assume that 'acceptable to the majority is synonymous with 'all right.') So it seems to me, that with no other forward-moving option on the table, we should embrace what has been presented with the knowledge that we have a legislated chance to adapt it (or give it the heave-ho) after an opportunity to road test it. I don't really think three elections is a long-time. Sure, it is at least 15% of most of our lives, but I think that it will take at least that long for the process and it's fall-out to become apparent. For better or for worse, we cannot fairly assess the system without reasonable time and practice. Yes, if we say 'no' to STV now, we will have a chance in the future for another crack at PR. I truly believe that we are much further than 12 years away from it if this is the choice we make. There is no evidence of this of course, except for how long it has taken us to get to this point in the first place. Lastly, and 'just for the record'... I can see how I may have come across as believeing that the CA was a waste of tax payer's money. Actually, I believe that it is a fantastic excercise in democracy. I was merely stating that I would understand the cornerstones of that argument fairly easily. Once again, thanks for the reasoned response. As previously mentioned, I expect I am going to be putting my 'X' in favour of BC-STV, but your aid in helping me find clarity (such as it is) is greatly appreciated, and I hope that I can use the further information you have provided to accurately present the 'No' side of the equation in my continued quest to educate those whom I cross paths with over the next week. Perhaps I'll even give a few of them enough reason to vote 'no.' Which would be my ultimate personal victory. I'd rather have someone voting 'no' from an informed position than 'yes' because they thought the acronym 'BC-STV' was 'neat' (or any other poor excuse for a decision.) Not part of the argument at hand, but an amusing anecdote to close on... Friday, my Voter Registration that I mailed... god knows how long ago... (I moved to a new riding in the past year.) was returned to me by Canada Post, despite it being "Business Reply Mail, Postage Paid of Mailed in Canada" and Elections BC's address being clearly labelled on the front - by Elections BC itself. No explanation. If I were an inherently more suspicious person... 8-o
Apologies for not reformatting either into a more readable structure - busy day.
Thanks for your considered response... I was beginning to think that I may never hear anything back! (I hope I've finally got this posting as something other than 'guest' - I'd like to have SOME sort of identity.) Over the past few days I've been making a point of discussing this with virtually everyone I cross paths with. Still the balance of opinion seems to be woefully under aware of the issues - even some of the more educated and erudite folk I know have little real understanding of the processes involved. I've had to explain numerous times how the system works - at varying levels of detail depending on the interest and political capacity of the people involved. (More on that in a moment.) But generally - and this could be a function of the segment of society I typically associate with - it seems as though the weight of opinion is in favour of reform... actually I can't recall anyone declaring that they were intending to vote 'no.' As I have talked about it more and explained all I can on both sides of the issue, the more and more convinced I have become that I too will be voting 'yes.' In fact, I would pretty much call it a certainty at this point. My main concern remains that people are under educated on the issue - not that there is much to be done either way with merely six days and counting to go. My gut tells me that disenfranchised voters who don't understand the new system are more likely to vote 'yes' as their knee-jerk, thinking that it's a strike against the Liberals (which it may or may not be, depending on how you expect the system to work in the end.) Pass or fail, I take issue with blind voting. Drives me nuts. To this end I've made a point of trying to properly represent both sides of the argument when discussing the issues with people. (I would suggest that it is this effort that has actually swayed me solidly in favour.) A further concern I have is how spoiled ballots will be counted. With a double majority needed to pass the referendum, spoiled ballots could seriously favour the 'no' side. I spoke with an Elections B.C official just last night in quiring about the counting process and so forth. He could not tell me (read: 'he did not know', not the more sinister 'he wouldn't tell me') whether the 60% of the total or the 50% in any specific riding was of total ballots or of valid ballots. If spoiled ballots are counted to towards the total, a spoiled ballot is then as good as a 'no' vote! Potentially good news for the 'no' side. I can see a situation where voters are handed their referendum ballot (which aparently they have the option to outright decline) and respond with a "What!?! There's a referendum and it's been so poorly publicized that this is the first I've heard about it!? Well then, I'm expressing my outrage by spoiling this ballot." Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and the scenario laid out should be of no concern to the detractors as it works entirely in favour of the 'no' side of the debate. One more thing that I would like to respond directly to - hopefully in aid of getting more clarification:
Quote:
Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself. This level of reform strikes me as a once in a generation opportunity. Any other reformative measures (Recall, for example) are more along the lines of tweaks to the existing structure. (Indeed, Recall itself needed to be tweaked.) It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect that any electoral process we agree to is going to be a sweep. There is simply no way we will get it all right the first time around. (Of course getting it 'ALL right' will never be possible, simply due to varying opinions, but for the sake of argument let's assume that 'acceptable to the majority is synonymous with 'all right.') So it seems to me, that with no other forward-moving option on the table, we should embrace what has been presented with the knowledge that we have a legislated chance to adapt it (or give it the heave-ho) after an opportunity to road test it. I don't really think three elections is a long-time. Sure, it is at least 15% of most of our lives, but I think that it will take at least that long for the process and it's fall-out to become apparent. For better or for worse, we cannot fairly assess the system without reasonable time and practice. Yes, if we say 'no' to STV now, we will have a chance in the future for another crack at PR. I truly believe that we are much further than 12 years away from it if this is the choice we make. There is no evidence of this of course, except for how long it has taken us to get to this point in the first place. Lastly, and 'just for the record'... I can see how I may have come across as believeing that the CA was a waste of tax payer's money. Actually, I believe that it is a fantastic excercise in democracy. I was merely stating that I would understand the cornerstones of that argument fairly easily. Once again, thanks for the reasoned response. As previously mentioned, I expect I am going to be putting my 'X' in favour of BC-STV, but your aid in helping me find clarity (such as it is) is greatly appreciated, and I hope that I can use the further information you have provided to accurately present the 'No' side of the equation in my continued quest to educate those whom I cross paths with over the next week. Perhaps I'll even give a few of them enough reason to vote 'no.' Which would be my ultimate personal victory. I'd rather have someone voting 'no' from an informed position than 'yes' because they thought the acronym 'BC-STV' was 'neat' (or any other poor excuse for a decision.) Not part of the argument at hand, but an amusing anecdote to close on... Friday, my Voter Registration that I mailed... god knows how long ago... (I moved to a new riding in the past year.) was returned to me by Canada Post, despite it being "Business Reply Mail, Postage Paid of Mailed in Canada" and Elections BC's address being clearly labelled on the front - by Elections BC itself. No explanation. If I were an inherently more suspicious person... 8-o
More on STV...
I finally got a response! Hooray!!!
Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.
Next... my response in return.
Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.
Next... my response in return.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
When it all seems shit...
Sometimes you just have to remind yourself just how good it is for you.
Yesterday I left work and could not get over how grumpy I was. I was well past the point where the grumpiness becomes self-perpetuating. I was mad because I was mad.
I had a run in with a co-worker. Not a big one, but one that really reflected back upon myself.
He's really just a pup, and holy shit is he loud, and inconsiderate. Much like I was at his age. We often play music around the office. But usually when there are just 2-3 of us and rarely do we crank it up very loud. When there are 5 or more, it's almost always head-phones time. When it is played out loud, we take turns, so there is a good variety.
But, the Pup just doesn't 'get' it.
To make matters worse... Yesterday was Kentucky Derby Day, which meant that the work load for the person doing my specific job was heavier and (no pun intended) higher-stakes than ANY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR. On top of all that, due to some software glitches that appeared last week, my job could only be done by one person - rather than shared, as it usually is on high-volume days. The result was that I have never been under more pressure at my job than yesterday.
Meanwhile, the Pup was playing his music CONSTANTLY with the volume at 11, all day. I have no idea why no one else said anything, and certainly I should have said somethign long before I did, because it didn't come out very nicely.
It would have been less of an issue if his music taste was broader. Generally when he plays his music it is the eccelctic, yet bizarre mix of: Chris Issac - Wicked Game; AC/DC - Thunderstruck (a song that they wrote long after they jumped the shark, in my opinion); Billy Idol - White Wedding (there's a reason I can only hear that song once every now and then and still be able to enjoy it at all , but it's a long story); Public Enemy - Night Train; and the real crime of it all, any number of songs that he wrote himself (it's not that they're specifically bad, they're just typically derivative self-aggrandizing gangsta rap, and I've long since got past the point of being able to find amusement in a kid from Coquitlam talking about how he "laid a man down with [his] A.K.") But honest to god, that's it! His own weak efforts plus four songs. It makes me mental.
So, I was pretty down on myself when I got home. I was mad that I was mad and mad that I felt like I've been mad for longer than I can figure - which I'm pretty certain simply means that I have to quit drinking coffee, which won't be the end of the world - certainly not after the first week.
When I got home Eden wanted me to go out to see a play that her Ex-husband wrote. He was going to be there. Fucking great. We've never met.
But I've been wanting to get the 'meeting Vern' thing over for nine months now. I just didn't want to have to do it when a) I'm feeling like Godzilla and b) Looking like a Trailer Park Boy (for an upcoming role) - a fact that is only exacerbated by the fact that any clothes I would identify as 'good' are in the laundry.
I went anyhow - I didn't really see that I had much of a choice. The first of the two of the three plays were weak. Not outright bad, but I was simply not in the mood to put up with mediocrity.
Then came the third play - Vern's. He showed up just before it started. That was a good warm up. We got introduced, shared some pleasantries and the lights went down.
Luckily his show was the best of the three by a long shot.
We went out after wards and we joined by the Co-Artistic Director of the theatre company. It was good to chat with Vern and share some theatrical stories. It was also really good to talk with Johnna (The A.D.) - nice to find out that the A.D of a Professional Theatre Company also has a 'real' job to make sure that there is a regular income and that there's a benefits plan in place. I totally understand that. She also had some really nice things to say about a piece that I wrote and submitted to her company over a year ago. Yay.
So, here I am back at work - and back to a day with normal volume (both of music and of work). And I'm thinking that actually life is pretty good. Yeah I'd rather be doing just my art - but seeing as I'm not/can't I'm glad I have a job where I can do a lot of my art simultaneously... most days. Derby Day excluded.
I look out the window and see the crack-head shuffling down to Victory Square and Pigeon Park and I know life could be a hell of a lot worse.
I'm still going to have to have a polite and rational conversation with the Pup about how he plays his music and that no-one should have trouble hearing their headphones over it, and also let him know that I think Public Enemy is one of the most under-rated bands of the past twenty years... just so that he doesn't think I hate his taste, and maybe to encourage him to be a bit more creative and rise above the poseur level he's currently at.
Yesterday I left work and could not get over how grumpy I was. I was well past the point where the grumpiness becomes self-perpetuating. I was mad because I was mad.
I had a run in with a co-worker. Not a big one, but one that really reflected back upon myself.
He's really just a pup, and holy shit is he loud, and inconsiderate. Much like I was at his age. We often play music around the office. But usually when there are just 2-3 of us and rarely do we crank it up very loud. When there are 5 or more, it's almost always head-phones time. When it is played out loud, we take turns, so there is a good variety.
But, the Pup just doesn't 'get' it.
To make matters worse... Yesterday was Kentucky Derby Day, which meant that the work load for the person doing my specific job was heavier and (no pun intended) higher-stakes than ANY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR. On top of all that, due to some software glitches that appeared last week, my job could only be done by one person - rather than shared, as it usually is on high-volume days. The result was that I have never been under more pressure at my job than yesterday.
Meanwhile, the Pup was playing his music CONSTANTLY with the volume at 11, all day. I have no idea why no one else said anything, and certainly I should have said somethign long before I did, because it didn't come out very nicely.
It would have been less of an issue if his music taste was broader. Generally when he plays his music it is the eccelctic, yet bizarre mix of: Chris Issac - Wicked Game; AC/DC - Thunderstruck (a song that they wrote long after they jumped the shark, in my opinion); Billy Idol - White Wedding (there's a reason I can only hear that song once every now and then and still be able to enjoy it at all , but it's a long story); Public Enemy - Night Train; and the real crime of it all, any number of songs that he wrote himself (it's not that they're specifically bad, they're just typically derivative self-aggrandizing gangsta rap, and I've long since got past the point of being able to find amusement in a kid from Coquitlam talking about how he "laid a man down with [his] A.K.") But honest to god, that's it! His own weak efforts plus four songs. It makes me mental.
So, I was pretty down on myself when I got home. I was mad that I was mad and mad that I felt like I've been mad for longer than I can figure - which I'm pretty certain simply means that I have to quit drinking coffee, which won't be the end of the world - certainly not after the first week.
When I got home Eden wanted me to go out to see a play that her Ex-husband wrote. He was going to be there. Fucking great. We've never met.
But I've been wanting to get the 'meeting Vern' thing over for nine months now. I just didn't want to have to do it when a) I'm feeling like Godzilla and b) Looking like a Trailer Park Boy (for an upcoming role) - a fact that is only exacerbated by the fact that any clothes I would identify as 'good' are in the laundry.
I went anyhow - I didn't really see that I had much of a choice. The first of the two of the three plays were weak. Not outright bad, but I was simply not in the mood to put up with mediocrity.
Then came the third play - Vern's. He showed up just before it started. That was a good warm up. We got introduced, shared some pleasantries and the lights went down.
Luckily his show was the best of the three by a long shot.
We went out after wards and we joined by the Co-Artistic Director of the theatre company. It was good to chat with Vern and share some theatrical stories. It was also really good to talk with Johnna (The A.D.) - nice to find out that the A.D of a Professional Theatre Company also has a 'real' job to make sure that there is a regular income and that there's a benefits plan in place. I totally understand that. She also had some really nice things to say about a piece that I wrote and submitted to her company over a year ago. Yay.
So, here I am back at work - and back to a day with normal volume (both of music and of work). And I'm thinking that actually life is pretty good. Yeah I'd rather be doing just my art - but seeing as I'm not/can't I'm glad I have a job where I can do a lot of my art simultaneously... most days. Derby Day excluded.
I look out the window and see the crack-head shuffling down to Victory Square and Pigeon Park and I know life could be a hell of a lot worse.
I'm still going to have to have a polite and rational conversation with the Pup about how he plays his music and that no-one should have trouble hearing their headphones over it, and also let him know that I think Public Enemy is one of the most under-rated bands of the past twenty years... just so that he doesn't think I hate his taste, and maybe to encourage him to be a bit more creative and rise above the poseur level he's currently at.
Friday, May 06, 2005
BC-STV better than your average STD.
The following is a re-posting of a message I left on a BC-STV discussion board. It covers most of my thoughts thus far.
Hi,
New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate...
I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote.
I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself.
I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system.
I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system.
So... on to other concerns...
Playing devil's advocate here.
All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire.
If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit.
Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances?
If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system.
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic.
Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings.
I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!'
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a problem that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own.
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim.
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections.
Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.
Hi,
New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate...
I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote.
I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself.
I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system.
I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system.
So... on to other concerns...
Playing devil's advocate here.
All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire.
If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit.
Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances?
If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system.
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic.
Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings.
I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!'
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a problem that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own.
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim.
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections.
Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Oh Rats!
Lot's I want to talk about today. But It all came to my attention fairly late - too late for me to really get going on before I have to leave the office.
Number one: While I am an advocate of free speech, ANN COULTER is really beyond the pale. I don't think murder is a commendable political tool, but if she were to suddenly DROP DEAD. I would not consider it a bad thing. I honestly think that she is dangerous to the human race.
Her comments on global warming are fucking insane. If global warming is nothing but a possibly specious theory, which side of that theory do you think it's best for us to come own on? Possibly the one that DOESN'T leave the planet in ruin?
And leaving the UN and kicking it off of US Soil? Holy Christ. Yes. I think that it ought to be hosted by another country - one with it's head screwed on straight. But leave the UN? Let's see, why would you do that? So you can wreak havoc willy-nilly without having to answer to any other nation with no regard for any sort of national conscience?
Fucking cow.
I love how she is referred to as a "controversialist" on a regular basis by Matt Drudge (Second example). A 'controversialist' - as in her opinions (such as they are) are intentionally pitched in a manner as to stir the pot. It devalues their worth as a valid train of thought.
I think if you have an opinion, you should at least be expected to adhere to some semblence of fact - especially if you are going to hold those you criticize to the same standard.
I also have more to say about the BC-STV - and the detractors and what they are saying and what I have to say - both for and against that.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Number one: While I am an advocate of free speech, ANN COULTER is really beyond the pale. I don't think murder is a commendable political tool, but if she were to suddenly DROP DEAD. I would not consider it a bad thing. I honestly think that she is dangerous to the human race.
Her comments on global warming are fucking insane. If global warming is nothing but a possibly specious theory, which side of that theory do you think it's best for us to come own on? Possibly the one that DOESN'T leave the planet in ruin?
And leaving the UN and kicking it off of US Soil? Holy Christ. Yes. I think that it ought to be hosted by another country - one with it's head screwed on straight. But leave the UN? Let's see, why would you do that? So you can wreak havoc willy-nilly without having to answer to any other nation with no regard for any sort of national conscience?
Fucking cow.
I love how she is referred to as a "controversialist" on a regular basis by Matt Drudge (Second example). A 'controversialist' - as in her opinions (such as they are) are intentionally pitched in a manner as to stir the pot. It devalues their worth as a valid train of thought.
I think if you have an opinion, you should at least be expected to adhere to some semblence of fact - especially if you are going to hold those you criticize to the same standard.
I also have more to say about the BC-STV - and the detractors and what they are saying and what I have to say - both for and against that.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Un-precedented Political Progress in British Columbia? Too good to be true?
I can't imagine that this isn't a slam-dunk in the democratic process, but then again, I could not have concieved of a nation stupid enough to re-elect George W. Bush. Luckily I am not talking about the same nation.
The referendum that will be accompanying the B.C. election has all the markings of a no-brainer to me. So much so that I am actually a bit wary of it. All the literature I've found is SO persuasively written that it raises my suspicions. So, I've delved deeper - hunting out every fact which seems obfuscated... and all the information is easily accessible... and it all seems above the board... and rational and wise. Everything seems to say EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY! Yes, there is something almost too good to be true here.
It seems bizarre to me that the B.C. Liberal government, who has benefitted from the electoral system that is in place would push such an inclusive democratic process that could only serve to undermine their status and power. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Senator Palpatine is waiting in the wings, letting us walk willfully into a trap that seems like an ideal political situation. WHAT AM I MISSING? Why isn't there a big movement to demonize the STV electoral system by the corporate entities that by all measures I can imagine only be hurt by the electoral reforms?
Well, until I can find evidence that contradicts the apparent circumstances, I stand as an advocate. We are only committed to it (if the referendum passes) for three elections (Yes, potentially 12 damaging years of our history - but NOT forever.)
The one element that I am most in favour of is the manner by which the new system was developed. The Citizens' Assembly. How progressive is that!? I've tried to find a hole in that process as well, and it too seems to be as above the board as can be. I hope that it is a big enough success that we as a Province will adopt it on other issues. Perhaps even convince other Provinces of it's value - even get it implemented Federally on select issues.
Further posts to come as my understanding develops and/or if more information arises.
The referendum that will be accompanying the B.C. election has all the markings of a no-brainer to me. So much so that I am actually a bit wary of it. All the literature I've found is SO persuasively written that it raises my suspicions. So, I've delved deeper - hunting out every fact which seems obfuscated... and all the information is easily accessible... and it all seems above the board... and rational and wise. Everything seems to say EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY! Yes, there is something almost too good to be true here.
It seems bizarre to me that the B.C. Liberal government, who has benefitted from the electoral system that is in place would push such an inclusive democratic process that could only serve to undermine their status and power. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Senator Palpatine is waiting in the wings, letting us walk willfully into a trap that seems like an ideal political situation. WHAT AM I MISSING? Why isn't there a big movement to demonize the STV electoral system by the corporate entities that by all measures I can imagine only be hurt by the electoral reforms?
Well, until I can find evidence that contradicts the apparent circumstances, I stand as an advocate. We are only committed to it (if the referendum passes) for three elections (Yes, potentially 12 damaging years of our history - but NOT forever.)
The one element that I am most in favour of is the manner by which the new system was developed. The Citizens' Assembly. How progressive is that!? I've tried to find a hole in that process as well, and it too seems to be as above the board as can be. I hope that it is a big enough success that we as a Province will adopt it on other issues. Perhaps even convince other Provinces of it's value - even get it implemented Federally on select issues.
Further posts to come as my understanding develops and/or if more information arises.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
You can't handle the truth!
I don't really have a lot to say about this one.
Maggie G (not going to bother misspelling her name five times in this post.) is spot on the money. By the time I got over the initial shock of the September 11th attack - which for me was by mid-afternoon that day - I was saying similar things. MANY people were saying similar things. The fucking tragedy is that the nation didn't listen and has since gone on to blow the living shot out of (significantly) two largely muslim countries.
An important thought that regularly gets ignored by those who stand by the flag is that being culpable in a passive way is not the same thing as 'those people in the WTC deserved to die.'
Any doctor will tell you that the best way to deal with illness is to prevent it in the first place rather than to excise the offending organs once they're diseased.
Maggie G (not going to bother misspelling her name five times in this post.) is spot on the money. By the time I got over the initial shock of the September 11th attack - which for me was by mid-afternoon that day - I was saying similar things. MANY people were saying similar things. The fucking tragedy is that the nation didn't listen and has since gone on to blow the living shot out of (significantly) two largely muslim countries.
An important thought that regularly gets ignored by those who stand by the flag is that being culpable in a passive way is not the same thing as 'those people in the WTC deserved to die.'
Any doctor will tell you that the best way to deal with illness is to prevent it in the first place rather than to excise the offending organs once they're diseased.
Moore & Bertuzzi
The NHL has finally had a hearing over the Moore-hit.
I suppose there was no real hurry thanks to the lock-out, but I do find it a shame that the lack of completion means that Bertuzzi cannot compete in the Worlds. Moore is a Canadian and he is technically responsible for keeping one of our best players from competing. I suppose there are numerous avenues by which one can argue that Moore is not responsible - and I wouldn't bother arguing against their creedence, there is a lot of validity in many of them. But Steve Moore is going to look like the bad-guy here. He's going to look like the guy who kept Bertuzzi off the team. If we do any less than Gold, he's going to take flak.
But again note... someone else - Canuck's lawyer, Michael O'Donnell - thinks that the civil suit is being conducted in the wrong forum. Colorado... it just doesn't make sense. Bertuzzi - Canadian. Moore - Canadian. The incident - Vancouver. The only connection to Colorado is that Moore was an Avalanche player at the time.
I suppose there was no real hurry thanks to the lock-out, but I do find it a shame that the lack of completion means that Bertuzzi cannot compete in the Worlds. Moore is a Canadian and he is technically responsible for keeping one of our best players from competing. I suppose there are numerous avenues by which one can argue that Moore is not responsible - and I wouldn't bother arguing against their creedence, there is a lot of validity in many of them. But Steve Moore is going to look like the bad-guy here. He's going to look like the guy who kept Bertuzzi off the team. If we do any less than Gold, he's going to take flak.
But again note... someone else - Canuck's lawyer, Michael O'Donnell - thinks that the civil suit is being conducted in the wrong forum. Colorado... it just doesn't make sense. Bertuzzi - Canadian. Moore - Canadian. The incident - Vancouver. The only connection to Colorado is that Moore was an Avalanche player at the time.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Clever Headline
I haven't got a wide knowledge base to base a solid opinion on about this one.
But my knee-jerk is that the Irish-man is right.
Paul Martin often seems like more of a Finance Minister (old habits die hard) than a Prime Minister. Good call, P.H.
And whomever comes up with the headlines for the Globe and Mail, put this one out of the park - I'm counting three levels on this one. Bango!
But my knee-jerk is that the Irish-man is right.
Paul Martin often seems like more of a Finance Minister (old habits die hard) than a Prime Minister. Good call, P.H.
And whomever comes up with the headlines for the Globe and Mail, put this one out of the park - I'm counting three levels on this one. Bango!
Friday, April 22, 2005
Case given das boot, with good reason.
Fucking America!
I can't believe that a culture has developed that is so ludicrously litigous as the glorious US of A.
The American dream has been perverted into a swinehole hallucination where someone ELSE does the work, then the sick, the poor, the dirty, the downtrodden masses clambor for a crack in the armour to appear - a place where the guard has been dropped long enough that the slightest indication of a potential 'i'-dotting ot 't'-crossing error results in someone else trying to scavenge a piece of the pie. Drives me fucking nuts.
It may be the case in the Jackson trial... much to my additional disgust.
It appears to be the situation in the case of the Wendy's finger.
But luckily there is an occassional outbreak of sanity. I feel for the family of Billy Tyne. It is a terrible thing to have to lose someone you love. We all have to do it. But few of us have it made into a movie - in this case The Perfect Storm. But it was a very respectful film, I thought. It recognised the very real dangers of being a fisherman on the Atlantic coast of North America, and paid homage to the men who live, love and die doing the job.
But Billy Tyne's family just didn't see it that way.
Ridiculous.
Did you see the film? Was Billy Tyne a bad person in the film? Nope. Driven? Yep. Did he make mistakes? Yep. Did he die? Yep. What happened in real life? Was he a bad person? Apparently not. Driven. Dunno, who cares. Did he make mistakes? I'm betting. Did he die? It appears as though. What went on on the Andrea Gail? I don't know. Wolfgang Peterson doesn't know. Sebastian Junger (the book's author) doesn't know. Billy Tyne's family doesn't know. It is ALL fiction.
The film itself is a huge fiction, and thinking otherwise is absolute folly - particularly if you know anything more than just what appears in the film! Just by reading the book I know that practically all of the events in the film are based upon things that DO happen in sword fishing - but all in one trip? Never. (Much like Planes Trains and Automobiles.) It's just far more interesting than the interminable hours of doing nothing or working without rest on a boat are. Can you imagine Jack Bauer went to bed for 9 hours sleep on '24' - what kind of Andy Warholian nightmare TV-show is that? "Tonight, on '24' - Jack's arm falls asleep, so he rolls over." For sweeps they'd probably have to have him get up and relieve his bladder. But I digress.
Anyhow, to short-cut to the point, the court made the right decision. Anything else would have been absurd.
But here is my question...
Why Florida? What sense is that?
Clearly it was a Florida law that was being exploited. But did the Andrea Gail set sail from Florida? Nope. That'd be Massechusettes. Was the film made in Florida? Nope. Hmmmm. Okay, the logic is starting to fall short. Uhhh. Does Mrs. Tyne and family now live in Florida? They had fucking better, and even then it pretty fucking stupid.
A related web-site to today's ranting.
I can't believe that a culture has developed that is so ludicrously litigous as the glorious US of A.
The American dream has been perverted into a swinehole hallucination where someone ELSE does the work, then the sick, the poor, the dirty, the downtrodden masses clambor for a crack in the armour to appear - a place where the guard has been dropped long enough that the slightest indication of a potential 'i'-dotting ot 't'-crossing error results in someone else trying to scavenge a piece of the pie. Drives me fucking nuts.
It may be the case in the Jackson trial... much to my additional disgust.
It appears to be the situation in the case of the Wendy's finger.
But luckily there is an occassional outbreak of sanity. I feel for the family of Billy Tyne. It is a terrible thing to have to lose someone you love. We all have to do it. But few of us have it made into a movie - in this case The Perfect Storm. But it was a very respectful film, I thought. It recognised the very real dangers of being a fisherman on the Atlantic coast of North America, and paid homage to the men who live, love and die doing the job.
But Billy Tyne's family just didn't see it that way.
Ridiculous.
Did you see the film? Was Billy Tyne a bad person in the film? Nope. Driven? Yep. Did he make mistakes? Yep. Did he die? Yep. What happened in real life? Was he a bad person? Apparently not. Driven. Dunno, who cares. Did he make mistakes? I'm betting. Did he die? It appears as though. What went on on the Andrea Gail? I don't know. Wolfgang Peterson doesn't know. Sebastian Junger (the book's author) doesn't know. Billy Tyne's family doesn't know. It is ALL fiction.
The film itself is a huge fiction, and thinking otherwise is absolute folly - particularly if you know anything more than just what appears in the film! Just by reading the book I know that practically all of the events in the film are based upon things that DO happen in sword fishing - but all in one trip? Never. (Much like Planes Trains and Automobiles.) It's just far more interesting than the interminable hours of doing nothing or working without rest on a boat are. Can you imagine Jack Bauer went to bed for 9 hours sleep on '24' - what kind of Andy Warholian nightmare TV-show is that? "Tonight, on '24' - Jack's arm falls asleep, so he rolls over." For sweeps they'd probably have to have him get up and relieve his bladder. But I digress.
Anyhow, to short-cut to the point, the court made the right decision. Anything else would have been absurd.
But here is my question...
Why Florida? What sense is that?
Clearly it was a Florida law that was being exploited. But did the Andrea Gail set sail from Florida? Nope. That'd be Massechusettes. Was the film made in Florida? Nope. Hmmmm. Okay, the logic is starting to fall short. Uhhh. Does Mrs. Tyne and family now live in Florida? They had fucking better, and even then it pretty fucking stupid.
A related web-site to today's ranting.
Monday, April 18, 2005
The Enemy List - II
Okay, I take it back.
I thought I knew for certain who was next to go on the enemy list. But then I got up and read this article.
I'm certainly no gun-advocate, but it's not an issue I'm particularly hot on. Ted Nugent might have made the list - although until now I had a certain admiration for his outrageous panache - but this sealed it.
It's not so much the pro-gun message, but how it was signed sealed and delivered. That's fucking nuts. Well beyond the point where I might shake my head and say "Oh that Ted! He's such a character." Nope. Not a character. A fucking wing-nut.
I have the smallest of sympathies for the desire to be rid of "the bad guys." But the utter lack of recognition of the fallibility of due-diligence and the justice system is thoroughly without virtue. What if someone should mark YOU as a bad-guy, Ted? An 'enemy' of all that is right? Oh... I just did. Ka-fucking-blam! You're dead!
On a related note... how was "Cat-scratch Fever" ever a hit? Has anyone ever actually bothered to listen to the song? So lame.
Oh, and it would be unfair of me not to direct you right to the source... after all, it is supposed to be about knowing the enemy. Ted Nugent's Website.
I thought I knew for certain who was next to go on the enemy list. But then I got up and read this article.
I'm certainly no gun-advocate, but it's not an issue I'm particularly hot on. Ted Nugent might have made the list - although until now I had a certain admiration for his outrageous panache - but this sealed it.
It's not so much the pro-gun message, but how it was signed sealed and delivered. That's fucking nuts. Well beyond the point where I might shake my head and say "Oh that Ted! He's such a character." Nope. Not a character. A fucking wing-nut.
I have the smallest of sympathies for the desire to be rid of "the bad guys." But the utter lack of recognition of the fallibility of due-diligence and the justice system is thoroughly without virtue. What if someone should mark YOU as a bad-guy, Ted? An 'enemy' of all that is right? Oh... I just did. Ka-fucking-blam! You're dead!
On a related note... how was "Cat-scratch Fever" ever a hit? Has anyone ever actually bothered to listen to the song? So lame.
Oh, and it would be unfair of me not to direct you right to the source... after all, it is supposed to be about knowing the enemy. Ted Nugent's Website.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
The Ally List
I'm probably going to post a second and inevitable part to the Enemies list before the weekend is up - and to be fair this one is just too easy and too obvious. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
But before I do, I thought it would be best, in the name of equal representation - just so the Enemies don't feel as though I'm singling them out and picking on them - that I'd better even up and post an Ally first.
The first Ally, is not one I would call easy, but I would say that there never really was any competition for who I would pick first.
A smart man, who regularly writes thought provoking and challenging views on life on this big blue marble.
Dr. David Brin.
He is an astro-physicist and author, known mostly for his Science Fiction, but whom should not be judged by his penchant for speculative reality.
His metaphorical looks at society are generally fun and often pretty dense when it comes to popular sci-fi, but above and beyond that, his thinking on various social issues - particularly his long-view on where we are developing as a culture - are disturbing and convincing.
This one, sparked largely by the November election in the U.S., resonates particularly well.
Also check out his book "The Transparent Society" which suggests amongst many other things, the frightening thought that we cannot stop the loss of our privacy by way of cameras on every street corner and elsewhere - but he does suggest that the concommitant "Big Brother State" is not an inevitable consequence, if we play our cards right. There is no point in fighting the former, it's just wasting our energy. Energy that could be used to direct the outcome towards a positive result where the watchers are effortlessly watched in return and we are all happily accountable for our actions.
It may be tough to swallow, but his arguments are provocative and convincing. It may not be the most pleasant thought, but he may well be right, and if so, we can't afford not to have listened. For that reason, he is my first Ally.
But before I do, I thought it would be best, in the name of equal representation - just so the Enemies don't feel as though I'm singling them out and picking on them - that I'd better even up and post an Ally first.
The first Ally, is not one I would call easy, but I would say that there never really was any competition for who I would pick first.
A smart man, who regularly writes thought provoking and challenging views on life on this big blue marble.
Dr. David Brin.
He is an astro-physicist and author, known mostly for his Science Fiction, but whom should not be judged by his penchant for speculative reality.
His metaphorical looks at society are generally fun and often pretty dense when it comes to popular sci-fi, but above and beyond that, his thinking on various social issues - particularly his long-view on where we are developing as a culture - are disturbing and convincing.
This one, sparked largely by the November election in the U.S., resonates particularly well.
Also check out his book "The Transparent Society" which suggests amongst many other things, the frightening thought that we cannot stop the loss of our privacy by way of cameras on every street corner and elsewhere - but he does suggest that the concommitant "Big Brother State" is not an inevitable consequence, if we play our cards right. There is no point in fighting the former, it's just wasting our energy. Energy that could be used to direct the outcome towards a positive result where the watchers are effortlessly watched in return and we are all happily accountable for our actions.
It may be tough to swallow, but his arguments are provocative and convincing. It may not be the most pleasant thought, but he may well be right, and if so, we can't afford not to have listened. For that reason, he is my first Ally.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Too Much Ass-wipe Really Picks My Butt
About two weeks ago I was on my way to work, about to get on the SkyTrain when I was ambushed by an aproned woman throwing a thin newspaper in my face.
"It's NEW! It's FREE!"
New and free are the greatest of all consumer-culture mantras. Naturally I took one... although I expected to be immediately assaulted from the page by some sort of political or religious agenda.
I admit that I have yet to grok any specific agenda from those pages, but I can't say I was looking - it simply wasn't immediately apparent.
I tried to read some of the dozen or so pages on my way to work. Not so easy. I'm only two stops (albeit two fairly long stops) from work. It doesn't take five minutes total, and a significant amount of that is taken up with negotiating the arrival and egress of passengers at the one interim stop.
Over the next two days I noticed though that the articles were largely devoid of any substance that wasn't already apparent from the headlines.
"Metro" was pretty light-weight, when it came to a newspaper.
On day four, in addition to the woman handing out papers at my local stop, there was a man handing out "New" "Free" papers at the stop next to my office. Not the same paper. This one was called "24 Hours" - and I immediately noticed billboards all over publicizing it. It was glossy and full colour and more like a comic-book in it's design... and the content was as vapid as Metro.
On the weekend, a whole new set of boxes appeared beside the weekly free news boxes... "Dose." More of the same.
By the time I went back to work, I had decided that none of these papers had anything of value to offer me. I didn't care if they were "New" or "Free" - they were "Pointless."
But by the time I was on the train platform it was covered with discarded papers... apparently many more people thought that it was pointless. The waste... fucking pisses me off.
They're still flogging the damned things at the SkyTrain, but less people are taking them. I pray the trend continues and they all go out of business... or at least two of them. Or maybe they can just print the headlines and save paper... it wouldn't change the quality of news they're disseminating.
"It's NEW! It's FREE!"
New and free are the greatest of all consumer-culture mantras. Naturally I took one... although I expected to be immediately assaulted from the page by some sort of political or religious agenda.
I admit that I have yet to grok any specific agenda from those pages, but I can't say I was looking - it simply wasn't immediately apparent.
I tried to read some of the dozen or so pages on my way to work. Not so easy. I'm only two stops (albeit two fairly long stops) from work. It doesn't take five minutes total, and a significant amount of that is taken up with negotiating the arrival and egress of passengers at the one interim stop.
Over the next two days I noticed though that the articles were largely devoid of any substance that wasn't already apparent from the headlines.
"Metro" was pretty light-weight, when it came to a newspaper.
On day four, in addition to the woman handing out papers at my local stop, there was a man handing out "New" "Free" papers at the stop next to my office. Not the same paper. This one was called "24 Hours" - and I immediately noticed billboards all over publicizing it. It was glossy and full colour and more like a comic-book in it's design... and the content was as vapid as Metro.
On the weekend, a whole new set of boxes appeared beside the weekly free news boxes... "Dose." More of the same.
By the time I went back to work, I had decided that none of these papers had anything of value to offer me. I didn't care if they were "New" or "Free" - they were "Pointless."
But by the time I was on the train platform it was covered with discarded papers... apparently many more people thought that it was pointless. The waste... fucking pisses me off.
They're still flogging the damned things at the SkyTrain, but less people are taking them. I pray the trend continues and they all go out of business... or at least two of them. Or maybe they can just print the headlines and save paper... it wouldn't change the quality of news they're disseminating.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Sith-ing Around for Nothing
The line up started Saturday.
Six weeks is an awfully long time to sit around, and while I can understand that waiting for Episode One people went to some extreme lengths to be first in the door... I myself woke up at 5 in the morning and sat in line for 3 or 4 hours for tickets (for what would be the third showing - one every 15 minutes starting at midnight) and then again for a few hours - with friends and it was actually pretty fun. 6 hours. Not 6 weeks. And we still got in the door long before anyone who waited 6 weeks got out and had a chance to ruin anything for us.
I guess none of this new batch of unemployed losers has seen either of the tepid two films that preceeded it.
The only way George Lucas could redeem himself is if he throws some twist at me that blows my mind and turns everything else I've seen so far on it's ass. Like the Jedi Masters have been sexually abusing their Padawans and THAT is why Anakin turned - 'cause Obiwan was as sick or sicker than the rest of them.
And speaking of...
Is it just me or does the tesimony of previous alleged victims of Michael Jackson look really bad for him?
But more on that later, I've got to go watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs... on my PS2.
Six weeks is an awfully long time to sit around, and while I can understand that waiting for Episode One people went to some extreme lengths to be first in the door... I myself woke up at 5 in the morning and sat in line for 3 or 4 hours for tickets (for what would be the third showing - one every 15 minutes starting at midnight) and then again for a few hours - with friends and it was actually pretty fun. 6 hours. Not 6 weeks. And we still got in the door long before anyone who waited 6 weeks got out and had a chance to ruin anything for us.
I guess none of this new batch of unemployed losers has seen either of the tepid two films that preceeded it.
The only way George Lucas could redeem himself is if he throws some twist at me that blows my mind and turns everything else I've seen so far on it's ass. Like the Jedi Masters have been sexually abusing their Padawans and THAT is why Anakin turned - 'cause Obiwan was as sick or sicker than the rest of them.
And speaking of...
Is it just me or does the tesimony of previous alleged victims of Michael Jackson look really bad for him?
But more on that later, I've got to go watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs... on my PS2.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
The True Believers
One of my Auto-Playlists in my media player is labelled "True Believers." It consists of all the music of the twenty bands of whom I will pretty much listen to anything they release. It doesn't mean that they have never released crap, or that they haven't had a fall from grace. It simply means that the balance of their music has at one time or another in my life meant enough to me that I am willing to listen to everything they've ever done, just to keep it fresh.
In a very rough countdown from 20...
20) Van Halen
When I said "fall from grace" - Van Halen was foremost in my mind. When I was in grade 8, I was watching Friday Night Videos when they first aired Jump. My conversion into a lifelong Van Halen fan took a mere 4 minutes and 4 seconds. The unadulterated energy of the video and the unbridled joy of the song were irresistable. They were the first band to truly be 'my favourite band.' I bought all their albums within a few short months. Actually I think I might have shop-lifted Fair Warning - time has wiped my memory of the details, but for some reason I have a recollection of my aquisition of that album being somehow... shady. I'll assume I shop-lifted it, although that is a bit out of character. I was basically a good kid.
Then Dave blah blah Sammy blah blah - the tale is old and boring by now.
The first Sam Halen album, 5150, was still pretty cool. While it certainly lacked the outrageous party-animal hysteria of the first six albums it made up for it in a new advanced musicality. But it wasn't enough to maintain my love, the band in my number 3 position below would soon push the Van Halen brothers aside.
Twenty years on now I recently rediscovered those first Van Halen albums. My perhaps overzealous scorn for their later work had somehow diminished the value of the DLR years. I had never replaced the vinyl versions with CDs. But one day I was in a second hand CD store and there was Van Halen and Van Halen II on sale for a song. I figureed 'what the hell' and bought them. Man oh man. What great albums they are. Over the next few weeks I relived my teener VH buying spree - except that this time I actually paid for Fair Warning. And in the 18 months since then, I've gone so far as to P2P (technically, right back to stealing...sigh) my catalogue of Van Hagar tracks up to a near complete level - and ya'know... it ain't so bad. There really is no comparison, they are two different bands with the same name - I could probably justify not including the post David Lee Roth Van Halen tracks in my True Believer list, but that would require additional programming of Media Player and it would rob me of the truly excellent tracks on 5150 and scattered through the later VH discography.
19) Queen
Queen holds a special place in my personal music biography. Never quite attaining the level of "favourite band" - at the time of Freddie Mercury's death they were the band with the most immense catalogue that had been subjected to my completeist tendencies. What I had for Queen was respect. The scope of their musical prowress was awe inspiring.
While their earlier albums tended generally to be more dense sonically than I was interested in - more along the lines of early Genesis and practically any Yes - where they went from there was (ahem) a kind of magic.
Thanks to Wayne's World, I never need to hear Bohemian Rhapsody ever again and my least favourite part of the Stanley Cup final is that they always, ALWAYS play We are the Champions. And there are other Queen songs that have become obvious and hackneyed cliches - Bicycle Race, Fat Bottomed Girls, Another One Bites the Dust & We Will Rock You all spring to mind - but they wouldn't have become such if they were not great songs to begin with.
My Queen collection has yet to recover from the switch from analogue to digital, but I have total faith that in time I will have a complete Queen collection again, for the time being I have all the indispensible tracks and that I can live with.
18) The Who
While, like Queen, The Who were never quite a favourite band - and I never did quite complete my Who collection, and doubt I ever will - they were always close. I discovered Queen on my own; The Who were knit into the fabric of my being.
The day the Who broke up - or rather the night it was on the news - my Mother got me out of bed to watch the Pete Townshend press conference. (It still kind of boggles me that they were big enough to be news.) I didn't really appreciate who they were at the time. I didn't really understand or equate the man on the television to the music I'd been hearing all my (at that point, short) life.
I don't really know what happened. I guess The Who was played enough around my home that I was familiar with it as a kid, but not so much that I knew every song by heart - like I did with The Smothers Brothers or Buddy Holly (Yeah, an odd combination to be certain.)
When they reunited for their 25th Anniversary Reunion Tour in 1989, I was the right age to experience a full-scale Who re-discovery.
At the time I was getting into performing and writing music with a band myself. There was music in my head that I was trying to get out, 'cause I knew it was interesting music, but it was sitting back there just below the conscious. I just had to release it.
And then I found The Who... I was generally familiar with a few tracks already - My Generation of course.
I began to listen to Tommy and Who's Next and a greatest hits package and discovered that I knew it all already... that the music that was itching to come out was in fact already written by Pete Townshend back in the 70's.
I had somehow, in the blue-collar city of Prince George, become a latent punk. I can't explain (Sorry.) But I expect that it must have had to do with my exposure to The Who - the best example of punk's predecessors - at a young age, an exposure that was not maintained and thus left a gap that needed filling... I guess.
I still have a great visceral love for The Who and I doubt that any CSI rooted over-exposure will ever ruin the majesty of Won't Get Fooled Again for me. I actually found that Summer of Sam was a palatable movie largely on the strength of the two sequences that were scored by that same track and Baba O'Reilly.
The Who are the only band originating in the 60's that makes this list. They are the only band on this list whose heyday was over before 1979.
I was very happy to have a chance to see them live when they re-grouped again to tour Quadrophenia. It was a sad and beautiful thing all at the same time, but that's fodder for another entry.
17) Juluka
If there is a band on this list you haven't heard of, chances are this is it. It's also the band that most exemplifies the statement "one of these things is not like the others" when applied to this list.
If you are a fan of Paul Simon's Graceland album and haven't heard of Juluka, you are a bad bad person. While Ladysmith Black Mambazo got the glory, Juluka was truly the inspiriation of the sound. They are the original purveyors of the Rock/Mbaqanga sound. To his credit, Simon recognizes this in his liner notes.
I was introduced to them in University. I had to buy their only two North American releases on vinyl shortly before it quit being a relevant medium. That was also about the time they quit recording together. Front man Johnny Clegg went on to make music with the very similar Savuka - including covering a few Juluka songs, (Scatterlings of Africa appeared on the Rainman soundtrack.) but it was never quite the same.
I managed to find bits and pieces of Juluka on CDs over the years, but it wasn't until just a few weeks ago that an old friend - the same one who introduced me to the band in the first place - gave me copies of every Juluka and Savuka track, giving me a complete collection for the first time.
16) Green Day
Like I said before, I was a latent punk in a redneck world. I suspect I know a bit of what it must have been like to grow up gay in a homophobic society. I have no doubt that "growing up gay" was a situation more traumatic than mine, but parallels still exist. I was tangentially in touch with the music I really loved, but I didn't fully understand until I moved away to a bigger city where my preferences were accepted for what they were.
Generally speaking I was forced to live with the existing first-wave punk and post-punk bands to sate my musical tastes. Hardcore was never quite what I wanted to hear... although Black Flag was certainly deserving of notice in my world. Not that I didn't like what I was hearing, but little of it felt like it was relevant to me.
But then a disaffected, emotionally fragile and brilliant punk-rock kid from Aberdeen, but for that last detail, much like myself, broke it wide open. In the wave of popular punk - the second wave - that followed, there were a host of bands that seemed to be doing exactly what I needed. Green Day may not have been the best, but they've arguably been the most endurable. I can't imagine a band could possibly get as much out of three and four chords as Green Day. Billie Joe is a genius in his own right.
Their songs are remarkable in their consistency and their outrageous spareness.
Both Dookie and Warning are amongst the most listenable albums in my entire collection and when you add a seminal classic like Good Riddance (Time of Your Life for those who aren't familiar with the sarcastic actual title of the song.) to the oeuvre they rise to a level where I feel I can personally equate them to the Rolling Stones (who I personally despise, but their own canon has similar qualities of simplicity and indisputable popular appeal.)
15) Our Lady Peace
The first of just two Canadian entries (there would be around five if I extended the list to about 30, but that would mean redefining the parameters.)
One of a number of bands that I discovered on tour. (Others include Live, NIN, Crash Test Dummies, Alanis Morrissette - the latter of which I discovered concurrently with OLP, literally the length of one music video apart.) While only one other of those bands mentioned makes this list, they all hold a special place in my heart. There is something very special about driving across this great nation with the stereo up to eleven, the windows down and speedometer at least 20 klicks over the limit. Anthemic music pounding away - it's a freedom-like flight. OLP's first album in 1995 fulfilled that need for me and when I returned home after four months on the road, I discovered that my bosom-buddy roommates had been discovering the same music while surfing the porch. (I'll define that at another time.)
Since then their stock has been bolstered by generally solid song-writing on album after album plus a number of perfect examples of songs that spoke to me the right way at the right time, such as Waited and Innocent.
14) Live
The other on tour discovery. In 1992, one of my tour mates, Brian, bought Mental Jewelry early in the tour. We listened to it daily - often multiple times - all tour, and when the tour was done we all went out and bought a copy.
Two tours later we were all listening to Throwing Copper - months before Lightning Crashes broke Live to the masses.
I've ALWAYS hated their name. Anytime I mention them it seems I need to explain myself as to what band I am referring to. But they have always risen above that small token of distaste. Their third and fourth albums generally failed to make an impression upon the world and their fifth only made waves as being the album that the song that accompainied most of the initial tributes (I.E. the first 72 hours or so) to the dead in the 9/11 disaster... Overcome.
But as a true believer, I have always loved their music, even when the rest of the world didn't care - both before they were huge and after. I think a lot of it has to do with the thought that if I were to have continued to make music, Live is the closest to what I think I would have made.
13) Offspring
Of all the punk-revival bands, Offspring has the best combination of relevance and humour. Blah blah - sold-out - blah blah. Yeah, well they're laughing all the way to the bank. I respect that they were the first punk band I knew to just relax into who they were. No posing. Just being comfortable with who they were. They were the first to be cool with being un-cool - which was pretty fucking cool.
On top of all that, through the past decade they have exhibited an excellent ability to play with various ethnic styles in the context of their music - Arabic, Calypso, Hawaiian.
It's hard for me not to relate to Dexter Holland - from Self-Esteem onwards - it seems that we've had the misfortune to date all the same women. I just hope he's been fortunate enough to find one as awesome as the one I finally lucked into... or maybe it would be better for their music if he didn't.
If there is one thing I have to fault them for... the pop-punk that has followed in their footsteps has a filthy-bad tendency to be cloyingly dumb.
12) R.E.M.
Here's an entry that most certainly would have ranked higher had they broken up a decade ago. Document, Green, Out of Time and Automatic for the People represent some of the best music from my University years.
R.E.M. as a whole represents a significant point in the evolution of music in the dying years of the 20th century. R.E.M. was the band that took 'alternative rock' into the mainstream... or if you prefer, that marked the beginning of the era where 'alternative' became a meaningless phrase.
Their earlier albums all stand up with the four more popular ones above; and the later ones each have a track or two which demonstrate the same musical acumen (a word I learned listening to them [Exhuming McCarthy]) but generally they each remind me of the musical habits of Prince and Lenny Kravitz - a single track of brilliance and the rest being absolute filler. But as they are in the rarified air of the 'True Believers' I'll listen to the drivel as an (ahem) alternative to wearing out the welcome of the genius tracks of their middle years.
In my days playing music, R.E.M. was one of the bands we most often covered. A fact that is a testament to how much we revered them as artists. They were popular but they had integrity. I believe they still have integrity - they have to in order to stay the course when their sound is losing it's relevance by degrees.
11) Midnight Oil
A band that bears much in common with R.E.M. in it's place in my musical world. A bunch of albums before they hit it big. A handful (Diesel and Dust, Blue Sky Mining, Earth and Sun and Moon) of pure brilliance. Like R.E.M., my compatriots and I played a lot of Midnight Oil. (Oil songs are much harder to cover than R.E.M.) The biggest difference lies in that Midnight Oil pretty much closed up shop for the Clinton Years. They had less to rail against then.
They lost a lot of momentum in doing so and when they did come out with new music it was largely ignored.
I had the pleasure of seeing them on the tour before Peter Garrett left the band. They were amazing. One of the best live concerts I've ever seen - and most of that was that crazy bald-surfer himself. But now he's gone... or is he? They played a benefit concert with him as frontman for Tsunami relief. I guess the answer there is that Peter Garrett would not be Peter Garrett if he weren't doing something to help the cause. It's not like he left the band 'cause he hated them - it was about doing something new, so a reunion after short order isn't such an odd thing, and under the circumstances it's in character; a measure of that character even.
That is certainly the most indelible feature of Midnight Oils' character as a band - the activism. Not to diminish the music - the music is the vehicle for the activism - but no other band on this list was as consistenly attached to the politics behind their music - and with bands such as R.E.M., U2, The Clash, Pearl Jam, Live and Juluka in the mix that is saying something. And that is something that meant a lot to me when I first started listening to them, and it is something I still respect to this day.
10) Everclear
Art Alexakis has one of the more one-track minds in rock, it seems. Art Alexakis can't stop singing about his lousy upbringing... and his daughter... and his failed marriage... and how he doesn't want to repeat history in terms of the above three susbjects. That pretty much sums up the content of at least 75% of Everclear's music. I had a pretty good childhood. I am not a parent. I've never been married - engaged, not married. But somehow I manage to relate to SO much of what he says. I think that his naked honesty must have an element of universality to it that appeals to me on a level I don't quite fully understand. Of all things, it was their Gap commercial that first interested me in Everclear, but in short order I found myself relating to Father of Mine. (For the record, my father is great. I love him. I always have. But somewhere under all the goodwill there are indeterminate father issues - they've come up time and again in my writing.) And then singing along to One Hit Wonder... and then So Much for the Afterglow. After I bought the album it barely left the CD player for the next year... by which point the first volume of Songs from an American Movie was coming out. Volvo Driving Soccer Mom reminded me of the woman who gave me a severe cougaring during that first year of my Everclear phase. But generally I felt they were losing my attention. So Much for the Afterglow bought Everclear a lot of leeway. They expended none of it on the first half of the American Movie series, or when I started on the back-catalogue with Sparkle and Fade. I didn't hold it against them that I was less interested in earlier works like World of Noise and White Trash Hell, but if the new album (and essentially new band, as only Art A. remains) doesn't improve on Slow Motion Day-dream, they may find themsleves falling off this list. One GREAT album does not a great band make... not unless the remaining work is at least journeyman level.
9) Nirvana
What hasn't already been said about Kurt Cobain's soul-baring? The painful honesty of the music - more obscurely poeticized than Art Alexakis's - was all the more heart-shearing thanks to the viscerally urgent voice behind it. The moment I heard of his death, I knew that he would be the mythic lost-voice for my generation. Our Jim Morrison or John Lennon.
The first day I heard Smells Like Teen Spirit I was living on a friend's couch before going on tour. I heard it in the afternoon on Much Music and was immediately affected by the song although I expected that I would never hear it again. It was too different. Too unique. That seems so strange now as I've heard it a million times since - either directly or in the innumerable songs that have taken their cues from it. That night I went to a dance club. I had only ever heard mainstream pop and hair metal there before. They played Smells Like Teen Spirit. The dance floor was packed... and it stayed packed. That was a moment of change. I could sense it on some level, but I would be a liar if I claimed I could tell the degree. I chalked SLTS up to a novelty and was glad to know that I could expect that that song that had intrigued me earlier was apparently going to be around for a bit. Two weeks later we were on tour and one of the pieces in the show was a parody of SLTS. That song... it hit the world like a wrecking ball.
A lot of Nirvana's lingering appeal is nostalgic. It still speaks to me, but more, it speaks to my past. I expect it always will.
8) Pearl Jam
Shortly after Nirvana turned everything I understood about music upside down, Pearl Jam came along, carrying the same banner. But never were two similar bands less alike. The musical prowress of Pearl Jam put them in a category so much apart from Nirvana's raw-elements that it seemed unfair to classify them under the same geographically rooted connection of the 'Seattle Sound.'
Ten was a revelation in it's own right. Vs. proved that they were capable of a repeat performance. Certainly most will have to declare that starting with Vitalogy that they became increasingly more experimental - and while 'increasingly' is misleading in it's implication of progression, that is essentially true. For me, Pearl Jam's eternal earnestness and commitment to the music made even the more loguey tracks worthy of respect. Certainly Yield and No Code each only offered up a few tracks that were 'vintage' Pearl Jam, but that's much of what I appreciated about them. Songs like Who You Are demonstrated their ability to continue pleasing their core fan base, while the remainder of the album explored increasingly diverse edges of their canon. What's the difference between that and R.E.M's filler? I can't say I can answer that concisely. I suspect that the difference lay in the work to follow. Binaural floored me. It will never be one of my favourite albums, but it presented a uniform vision that married the old Pearl Jam with the more experimental Pearl Jam. Riot Act managed to serve as a reasonable follow up.
But what really makes Pearl Jam special is their live material. The fifty plus 'live bootlegs' that they personally released, while being one of the supporting pillars of the band's demonstration of it's integrity - their battle with TicketMaster being another - showcase a band that gives the most when they're performing live. While I enjoy their studio albums - particularly the first three and Binaural - if I had to pick three Pearl Jam albums to listen to for the rest of my life, they'd all be live.
7) The Pixies
I have an admission to make. One which I regularly make when speaking of the Pixies.
Back in the late 80s I was writing record reviews for a college newspapaer - the CNC Free Press. A local music store would give me copies of albums to preview and I'd write the reviews. The Pixies first non-indie release, Surfer Rosa, was one of those albums. I listened to it (grudgingly) three times, and then gave it one of the two worst reviews I ever gave an album. (The other went to The Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions - another album I eventually came to love. I quit writing reviews before that year was over.) I can't recall what I said exactly - and by now the paper it was written on has turned to acidy dust. But it was not complimentary.
About three years - maybe four - passed.
I was on tour for the first time. I was watching another company's show. Actually it was pre-show, and they had music playing before the show started. I was totally enjoying it. Every song was obviously by the same band. ...and then... on came a song I recognized - the same band, again... and I realized all at once that I was listening to the Pixies album that I had run down so completely in the Free Press.
I owned all available Pixies albums within the next three months. I bought the new - and last - one as soon as it came out.
I went to see them open for U2 on the opening leg of the ZooTV tour. They were awful. Which was a bit of a let down. The next night, they broke up... although they didn't tell the world for another few months. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that their terrible live performance was a result of the fact that as a band they were hardly speaking to each other.
Over the years I picked up the bits and scraps of releases that have come out - the Purple album being the most significant. I diligently listened to The Breeders and Frank Black and Frank Black and The Catholics. I even went to see Frank Black and the Catholics with every guy I know named 'Ray'. (For those who aren't on the 'in' - Frank Black's third solo album was called Cult of Ray.) That was kind of funny. That concert was excellent. Too bad he didn't play any old Pixies songs... but can you blame him?
When they reformed last year, at first I was excited. But then... I kind of felt like hell had frozen over, Christmas came too soon and I lost my virginity all in one day and every single part was disappointing. It was the thing that wasn't supposed to happen at all... and the fact that it had seemed wrong - as exciting as it was. A myth had been destroyed.
I didn't go see them either time they went through town. I don't know how I could.
6) Soul Coughing
Okay. I was late on this bandwagon. Really late. They'd already broken up. They also only ever had three albums and a handful of one-off releases (significantly on both the X-Files soundtracks.) Really. Soul Coughing has the combined distinction of being the first band that I really discovered due to P2P sharing; and being the last band that I ever went out and bought all their back-catalogue of. I doubt I'll ever do that again... unless the world of copyright makes a sudden and unexpected shift back in favour of the music companies, but as I mentioned in a previous posting, I don't think that's likely.)
I have no idea what Mike Doughty is going on about in any of their songs. None. This band is simply very cool and very listenable. I find that anytime I play them for virtually anyone who has modern music tastes, they like Soul Coughing. Why they were never bigger than Jesus, I don't know.
If you aren't familar - for god's sake, become familiar. Chances are you'll thank yourself for it.
5) Cake
I've already spent an entire posting talking about Cake at length. I'm not going to rehash here.
4) The Clash
At the end of the 80's, Rolling Stone named London Calling the best album of the 80's. Now, considering the large amount of shear audio-pap that came from that decade that may not seem like a particularly tough position to hold. But if you look at the cream of the crop of the 80s (Including such masterworks as Synchronicity, The Joshua Tree, and Graceland [Which despite being mentioned twice in this post is not really a favourite of mine - I've never owned it, but it IS a widely recognized excellent album. My point being that 'masterwork' extends past my own tastes.] to name but a few.) it IS quite an accomplishment.
If the Rolling Stone declared that London Calling was the greatest album of all time I wouldn't personally feel the need to scoff - but instead they proved how un-hip they have been for the past 20 years by naming Sgt. Pepper's blah blah easy choice Club Band as their number one. Ya-fucking-awn.
London Calling is one of those albums that is SO good that had The Clash never released another decent album in their career (like say the SexPistols did with Never Mind the Bullocks and... nothing) they would still be recognized as music pioneers. Their subsequent albums would have sold well anyways. Hey, it worked for the Crash Test Dummies for two or three albums.
The Clash was the epitome of what was right about the original punk ethic, and they still had two excellent albums - Sandanista! and Combat Rock - and one okay one - Cut the Crap - left in them.
3) The Police
I don't think it's possible to have grown up in the Neo-Western world in the 80s and not be a fan of The Police. They were punk, post-punk, pop, reggae, rock, and even jazz all in one tight package. And the real magic was that they didn't let all those influences muddy their style - which by all right is exactly what should have happened.
If I were to make a list of my top albums of all time, Synchronicity would be in the top ten. Actually, I'm pretty confident it would be in the top five. Probably top THREE, I'm just holding out on committing to that in case I'm having a brian fart and missing a seminal work that changed my life.
A few years back I had an epiphanic exchange with the friend who, when we were teens, I discovered the Police with. I had just watched some old concert film of them - probably the widely distributed Atlanta concert - and had noted that the percieved talent balance in the band, was not as I had seen it as a teenager.
Sting naturally got most of the attention. He wrote the lion's share of the music and he sang almost all of the songs. His bass-lines ranged from admirable to excellent and he was a good-looking guy who women wanted to be with and guys wanted to be. But post-Police his output has become more and more turgid. Thankfully, it appears that there was a limit to how dull it could get and every now and then he writes a song that recalls that he was practically an autistic-savant-genius in his song-writing. Dream of the Blue Turtles his only solo album that was ever uniformly excellent, although I kept hoping, right through the Soul Cages. (All this Time from that album does rank as one of his best ever.) It makes one wonder just how much of his talent was his and how much was buoyed up by the fact that he was with two other brilliant musicians.
Andy Summers was an amazing guitarist. He was also significantly older than the other two - to the degree that they virtually idolized him and when he agreed to be in their band, it was a watershed moment for them. Haven't really heard much from Andy since the Police split, have we? Brilliant as he was, his musicianship was of the sort best not showcased. His embellishements on pre-existing structure were his true strength. Supporting and building upon and enriching someone else's work. I don't think anyone ever really had any illusions about that - his place in the band.
But then there was Stewart Copeland. Not only was the sonic conception of the group his, but his percussion work served as the anchor throughout the group's career. I don't know why I never noticed until I was watching that concert, but the Police wouldn't have been half the band without Stewart Copeland. Unfortunately I don't have the vocabulary to sufficiently express my feelings and observations on the subject of Stewart's percussion - I don't want to call it 'drumming,' that would be too limiting a term. When I mentioned the thought to Demetri - a more accomplished musician than I (not that either of us would call ourselves musicians before anything else) - he agreed whole heartedly. Sting was both the face and the structure, Andy was the flourish and decor, but Stewart was the backbone and the blueprint.
Of all the bands on this list that were making music back when I was first discovering it, the Police are the one I've neither ever have to remind myself about how great they were, and that I never find myself thinking 'oh, THAT has become quaint.'
2) The Tragically Hip
A good friend of mine once said "I used to think of the Hip as one of my favoruite Canadian bands, now I don't use the national qualifier." I don't know when I quit using the qualifier.
I do recall the first time I ever heard them. They had an immediate impact on me. I was driving in my car, on my way to a friend's house. I was about a block away when the DJ announced that he was going to play the first single from a new band from Kingston Ontario. This sort of thing of course happens all the time. The song was Small Town Bringdown and I was intrigued by it enough that even though I was parked before the chorus was over, I listened through until the end before getting out of my car. I didn't buy the album... then. I heard the song a few more times on the radio, and same with their second single, Last American Exit.
That was it, for quite a long time - practically three years. By this time I was playing in a band. The bassist (Incidentally the same fellow who I quoted in the first sentence of this section.) arrived at rehearsal with a cassette one day - Up to Here - and played it for us, demanding that we had to learn one of their songs (he had a few suggestions as to which). When we asked what the band was, he said "they're new - the Tragically Hip." I got to say "they're not as new as you think."
We did eventually learn Blow at High Dough, and in the years since I've learned dozens of Hip songs.
Why the Hip have never broken south of the border will always be a mystery, but it has been written about many times before.
One thing that seems to NOT have been written about is Gord Downie's fascination with shipwrecks. I may go in depth about it at a later time, but off the top of my head... New Orleans is Sinking; Fiddler's Green; Nautical Disaster; Scared; Titanic Terrarium; The Dire Wolf, as well as Pascal's Submarine from his second solo album all are either about shipwrecks or have imagry and/or references to them. (Not to mention any number of arguably similar themes - planes crashing, going over Niagra in a barrel.) What's that about, Gord?
Of the five best concerts I've ever been to, two of them would be the Hip - they're good on disc, but live is the real ticket. If I extended the list to ten, then probably all five Hip concerts I've been to would make the cut. They are THAT good.
Since Road Apples, I've bought (or had bought for me) every Hip album the day it was first available - except for Between Evolution which somehow slipped through the cracks for me until it was already released. The fact that I bought Between Evolution, when I have spiritually committed myself to P2P piracy, is testament to how much I respect the Hip.
Day for Night (which ranks with Synchronicity in my top 5, probable top 3) went into my CD player the night I bought it and didn't just not come out, but didn't quit playing for over a month. Honestly. I put it in and hit play and while I adjusted the volume a bit, it never stopped. I was living in an attic at the time and sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities on the floor below. I would get up in the morning and listen to it while getting dressed and as I went down stairs. I'd leave the door open and listen to it as I did my morning routine. Then when I headed off to class, I would simply close the door, rather than climb the stairs again. When I'd come home, it would welcome me in the door and back upstairs. Part of that was the time of my life, but if the album didn't resonate with me that well, it would not have happened.
1) U2
I'm almost ashamed to have such an obvious choice at number one. But I can claim to be a fan from WAY back. Pre-Joshua Tree. By now, being someone who jumped on the band-wagon at the Joshua Tree means you are practically a fan from the beginning, and most fans from pre-Joshua Tree long since gave up on the band. My type is truly rare.
I wasn't a big U2 fan until the Joshua Tree, but they were on the radar. War was a kick-ass post-punk album on my planet.
God knows there have been lows - almost all of Pop and in retrospect most of Rattle and Ho-Hum, but when they manage to put out an album like All that You Can't Leave Behind and follow it up with the solid How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, twenty five years into their career and still with the original line-up. I start to scoff at anyone who tries to claim that the Rolling Stones are the best, most long-lived rock act in the world. Give me a fucking break.
The Stones quit being relevant back when I was in high-school. By the time they were doing their 25-year Steel Wheelchairs tour, had they evolved? Nope, they were still playing the same pentatonic blues rip-off that they'd played when they first released Satisfaction in 1965. Snoozers for losers. Not that my complete lack of respect for their musical style makes them a bad band. Their lack of development makes them a bad band.
Meanwhile U2 took the chance and went off the rails a few times, but they also took chances and found themselves on entirely new tracks that led to new and interesting places. And when they made new albums that were 'returning to their roots' they found that instead they were actually melding all that had come before in familiar, yet new ways.
Live they had it all. Joshua Tree was like a religious gathering. Easily the best concert of my life. Simple yet spectaular. And when it was all done, we - the audience - sang 40 for at least that many minutes... not uncommon at U2 shows in those days. ZooTV was completely in the other direction - 100% high-tech extravaganza. That phase got out of hand two albums later. But in it's earliest portion - and it was the very earliest portion, I saw them when the ZooTV tour was still the Achtung Baby tour - it was a treat of amazing sensory overload.
And through it all they've stuck to their guns. Bono as head of the world bank, while silly, made more sense than Paul Wolfowitz. The tip of the hat that he would even be considered it testament to the sort of person he has been.
I feel proud that a band I liked before they were huge lived up to my faith in them. Not just once, but over and over again. For that reason, I doubt that they will ever be dethroned from the top place. I won't be ashamed for having such a huge pop-success as my favourite band. I thought they were good, and in time so did many many others.
In a very rough countdown from 20...
20) Van Halen
When I said "fall from grace" - Van Halen was foremost in my mind. When I was in grade 8, I was watching Friday Night Videos when they first aired Jump. My conversion into a lifelong Van Halen fan took a mere 4 minutes and 4 seconds. The unadulterated energy of the video and the unbridled joy of the song were irresistable. They were the first band to truly be 'my favourite band.' I bought all their albums within a few short months. Actually I think I might have shop-lifted Fair Warning - time has wiped my memory of the details, but for some reason I have a recollection of my aquisition of that album being somehow... shady. I'll assume I shop-lifted it, although that is a bit out of character. I was basically a good kid.
Then Dave blah blah Sammy blah blah - the tale is old and boring by now.
The first Sam Halen album, 5150, was still pretty cool. While it certainly lacked the outrageous party-animal hysteria of the first six albums it made up for it in a new advanced musicality. But it wasn't enough to maintain my love, the band in my number 3 position below would soon push the Van Halen brothers aside.
Twenty years on now I recently rediscovered those first Van Halen albums. My perhaps overzealous scorn for their later work had somehow diminished the value of the DLR years. I had never replaced the vinyl versions with CDs. But one day I was in a second hand CD store and there was Van Halen and Van Halen II on sale for a song. I figureed 'what the hell' and bought them. Man oh man. What great albums they are. Over the next few weeks I relived my teener VH buying spree - except that this time I actually paid for Fair Warning. And in the 18 months since then, I've gone so far as to P2P (technically, right back to stealing...sigh) my catalogue of Van Hagar tracks up to a near complete level - and ya'know... it ain't so bad. There really is no comparison, they are two different bands with the same name - I could probably justify not including the post David Lee Roth Van Halen tracks in my True Believer list, but that would require additional programming of Media Player and it would rob me of the truly excellent tracks on 5150 and scattered through the later VH discography.
19) Queen
Queen holds a special place in my personal music biography. Never quite attaining the level of "favourite band" - at the time of Freddie Mercury's death they were the band with the most immense catalogue that had been subjected to my completeist tendencies. What I had for Queen was respect. The scope of their musical prowress was awe inspiring.
While their earlier albums tended generally to be more dense sonically than I was interested in - more along the lines of early Genesis and practically any Yes - where they went from there was (ahem) a kind of magic.
Thanks to Wayne's World, I never need to hear Bohemian Rhapsody ever again and my least favourite part of the Stanley Cup final is that they always, ALWAYS play We are the Champions. And there are other Queen songs that have become obvious and hackneyed cliches - Bicycle Race, Fat Bottomed Girls, Another One Bites the Dust & We Will Rock You all spring to mind - but they wouldn't have become such if they were not great songs to begin with.
My Queen collection has yet to recover from the switch from analogue to digital, but I have total faith that in time I will have a complete Queen collection again, for the time being I have all the indispensible tracks and that I can live with.
18) The Who
While, like Queen, The Who were never quite a favourite band - and I never did quite complete my Who collection, and doubt I ever will - they were always close. I discovered Queen on my own; The Who were knit into the fabric of my being.
The day the Who broke up - or rather the night it was on the news - my Mother got me out of bed to watch the Pete Townshend press conference. (It still kind of boggles me that they were big enough to be news.) I didn't really appreciate who they were at the time. I didn't really understand or equate the man on the television to the music I'd been hearing all my (at that point, short) life.
I don't really know what happened. I guess The Who was played enough around my home that I was familiar with it as a kid, but not so much that I knew every song by heart - like I did with The Smothers Brothers or Buddy Holly (Yeah, an odd combination to be certain.)
When they reunited for their 25th Anniversary Reunion Tour in 1989, I was the right age to experience a full-scale Who re-discovery.
At the time I was getting into performing and writing music with a band myself. There was music in my head that I was trying to get out, 'cause I knew it was interesting music, but it was sitting back there just below the conscious. I just had to release it.
And then I found The Who... I was generally familiar with a few tracks already - My Generation of course.
I began to listen to Tommy and Who's Next and a greatest hits package and discovered that I knew it all already... that the music that was itching to come out was in fact already written by Pete Townshend back in the 70's.
I had somehow, in the blue-collar city of Prince George, become a latent punk. I can't explain (Sorry.) But I expect that it must have had to do with my exposure to The Who - the best example of punk's predecessors - at a young age, an exposure that was not maintained and thus left a gap that needed filling... I guess.
I still have a great visceral love for The Who and I doubt that any CSI rooted over-exposure will ever ruin the majesty of Won't Get Fooled Again for me. I actually found that Summer of Sam was a palatable movie largely on the strength of the two sequences that were scored by that same track and Baba O'Reilly.
The Who are the only band originating in the 60's that makes this list. They are the only band on this list whose heyday was over before 1979.
I was very happy to have a chance to see them live when they re-grouped again to tour Quadrophenia. It was a sad and beautiful thing all at the same time, but that's fodder for another entry.
17) Juluka
If there is a band on this list you haven't heard of, chances are this is it. It's also the band that most exemplifies the statement "one of these things is not like the others" when applied to this list.
If you are a fan of Paul Simon's Graceland album and haven't heard of Juluka, you are a bad bad person. While Ladysmith Black Mambazo got the glory, Juluka was truly the inspiriation of the sound. They are the original purveyors of the Rock/Mbaqanga sound. To his credit, Simon recognizes this in his liner notes.
I was introduced to them in University. I had to buy their only two North American releases on vinyl shortly before it quit being a relevant medium. That was also about the time they quit recording together. Front man Johnny Clegg went on to make music with the very similar Savuka - including covering a few Juluka songs, (Scatterlings of Africa appeared on the Rainman soundtrack.) but it was never quite the same.
I managed to find bits and pieces of Juluka on CDs over the years, but it wasn't until just a few weeks ago that an old friend - the same one who introduced me to the band in the first place - gave me copies of every Juluka and Savuka track, giving me a complete collection for the first time.
16) Green Day
Like I said before, I was a latent punk in a redneck world. I suspect I know a bit of what it must have been like to grow up gay in a homophobic society. I have no doubt that "growing up gay" was a situation more traumatic than mine, but parallels still exist. I was tangentially in touch with the music I really loved, but I didn't fully understand until I moved away to a bigger city where my preferences were accepted for what they were.
Generally speaking I was forced to live with the existing first-wave punk and post-punk bands to sate my musical tastes. Hardcore was never quite what I wanted to hear... although Black Flag was certainly deserving of notice in my world. Not that I didn't like what I was hearing, but little of it felt like it was relevant to me.
But then a disaffected, emotionally fragile and brilliant punk-rock kid from Aberdeen, but for that last detail, much like myself, broke it wide open. In the wave of popular punk - the second wave - that followed, there were a host of bands that seemed to be doing exactly what I needed. Green Day may not have been the best, but they've arguably been the most endurable. I can't imagine a band could possibly get as much out of three and four chords as Green Day. Billie Joe is a genius in his own right.
Their songs are remarkable in their consistency and their outrageous spareness.
Both Dookie and Warning are amongst the most listenable albums in my entire collection and when you add a seminal classic like Good Riddance (Time of Your Life for those who aren't familiar with the sarcastic actual title of the song.) to the oeuvre they rise to a level where I feel I can personally equate them to the Rolling Stones (who I personally despise, but their own canon has similar qualities of simplicity and indisputable popular appeal.)
15) Our Lady Peace
The first of just two Canadian entries (there would be around five if I extended the list to about 30, but that would mean redefining the parameters.)
One of a number of bands that I discovered on tour. (Others include Live, NIN, Crash Test Dummies, Alanis Morrissette - the latter of which I discovered concurrently with OLP, literally the length of one music video apart.) While only one other of those bands mentioned makes this list, they all hold a special place in my heart. There is something very special about driving across this great nation with the stereo up to eleven, the windows down and speedometer at least 20 klicks over the limit. Anthemic music pounding away - it's a freedom-like flight. OLP's first album in 1995 fulfilled that need for me and when I returned home after four months on the road, I discovered that my bosom-buddy roommates had been discovering the same music while surfing the porch. (I'll define that at another time.)
Since then their stock has been bolstered by generally solid song-writing on album after album plus a number of perfect examples of songs that spoke to me the right way at the right time, such as Waited and Innocent.
14) Live
The other on tour discovery. In 1992, one of my tour mates, Brian, bought Mental Jewelry early in the tour. We listened to it daily - often multiple times - all tour, and when the tour was done we all went out and bought a copy.
Two tours later we were all listening to Throwing Copper - months before Lightning Crashes broke Live to the masses.
I've ALWAYS hated their name. Anytime I mention them it seems I need to explain myself as to what band I am referring to. But they have always risen above that small token of distaste. Their third and fourth albums generally failed to make an impression upon the world and their fifth only made waves as being the album that the song that accompainied most of the initial tributes (I.E. the first 72 hours or so) to the dead in the 9/11 disaster... Overcome.
But as a true believer, I have always loved their music, even when the rest of the world didn't care - both before they were huge and after. I think a lot of it has to do with the thought that if I were to have continued to make music, Live is the closest to what I think I would have made.
13) Offspring
Of all the punk-revival bands, Offspring has the best combination of relevance and humour. Blah blah - sold-out - blah blah. Yeah, well they're laughing all the way to the bank. I respect that they were the first punk band I knew to just relax into who they were. No posing. Just being comfortable with who they were. They were the first to be cool with being un-cool - which was pretty fucking cool.
On top of all that, through the past decade they have exhibited an excellent ability to play with various ethnic styles in the context of their music - Arabic, Calypso, Hawaiian.
It's hard for me not to relate to Dexter Holland - from Self-Esteem onwards - it seems that we've had the misfortune to date all the same women. I just hope he's been fortunate enough to find one as awesome as the one I finally lucked into... or maybe it would be better for their music if he didn't.
If there is one thing I have to fault them for... the pop-punk that has followed in their footsteps has a filthy-bad tendency to be cloyingly dumb.
12) R.E.M.
Here's an entry that most certainly would have ranked higher had they broken up a decade ago. Document, Green, Out of Time and Automatic for the People represent some of the best music from my University years.
R.E.M. as a whole represents a significant point in the evolution of music in the dying years of the 20th century. R.E.M. was the band that took 'alternative rock' into the mainstream... or if you prefer, that marked the beginning of the era where 'alternative' became a meaningless phrase.
Their earlier albums all stand up with the four more popular ones above; and the later ones each have a track or two which demonstrate the same musical acumen (a word I learned listening to them [Exhuming McCarthy]) but generally they each remind me of the musical habits of Prince and Lenny Kravitz - a single track of brilliance and the rest being absolute filler. But as they are in the rarified air of the 'True Believers' I'll listen to the drivel as an (ahem) alternative to wearing out the welcome of the genius tracks of their middle years.
In my days playing music, R.E.M. was one of the bands we most often covered. A fact that is a testament to how much we revered them as artists. They were popular but they had integrity. I believe they still have integrity - they have to in order to stay the course when their sound is losing it's relevance by degrees.
11) Midnight Oil
A band that bears much in common with R.E.M. in it's place in my musical world. A bunch of albums before they hit it big. A handful (Diesel and Dust, Blue Sky Mining, Earth and Sun and Moon) of pure brilliance. Like R.E.M., my compatriots and I played a lot of Midnight Oil. (Oil songs are much harder to cover than R.E.M.) The biggest difference lies in that Midnight Oil pretty much closed up shop for the Clinton Years. They had less to rail against then.
They lost a lot of momentum in doing so and when they did come out with new music it was largely ignored.
I had the pleasure of seeing them on the tour before Peter Garrett left the band. They were amazing. One of the best live concerts I've ever seen - and most of that was that crazy bald-surfer himself. But now he's gone... or is he? They played a benefit concert with him as frontman for Tsunami relief. I guess the answer there is that Peter Garrett would not be Peter Garrett if he weren't doing something to help the cause. It's not like he left the band 'cause he hated them - it was about doing something new, so a reunion after short order isn't such an odd thing, and under the circumstances it's in character; a measure of that character even.
That is certainly the most indelible feature of Midnight Oils' character as a band - the activism. Not to diminish the music - the music is the vehicle for the activism - but no other band on this list was as consistenly attached to the politics behind their music - and with bands such as R.E.M., U2, The Clash, Pearl Jam, Live and Juluka in the mix that is saying something. And that is something that meant a lot to me when I first started listening to them, and it is something I still respect to this day.
10) Everclear
Art Alexakis has one of the more one-track minds in rock, it seems. Art Alexakis can't stop singing about his lousy upbringing... and his daughter... and his failed marriage... and how he doesn't want to repeat history in terms of the above three susbjects. That pretty much sums up the content of at least 75% of Everclear's music. I had a pretty good childhood. I am not a parent. I've never been married - engaged, not married. But somehow I manage to relate to SO much of what he says. I think that his naked honesty must have an element of universality to it that appeals to me on a level I don't quite fully understand. Of all things, it was their Gap commercial that first interested me in Everclear, but in short order I found myself relating to Father of Mine. (For the record, my father is great. I love him. I always have. But somewhere under all the goodwill there are indeterminate father issues - they've come up time and again in my writing.) And then singing along to One Hit Wonder... and then So Much for the Afterglow. After I bought the album it barely left the CD player for the next year... by which point the first volume of Songs from an American Movie was coming out. Volvo Driving Soccer Mom reminded me of the woman who gave me a severe cougaring during that first year of my Everclear phase. But generally I felt they were losing my attention. So Much for the Afterglow bought Everclear a lot of leeway. They expended none of it on the first half of the American Movie series, or when I started on the back-catalogue with Sparkle and Fade. I didn't hold it against them that I was less interested in earlier works like World of Noise and White Trash Hell, but if the new album (and essentially new band, as only Art A. remains) doesn't improve on Slow Motion Day-dream, they may find themsleves falling off this list. One GREAT album does not a great band make... not unless the remaining work is at least journeyman level.
9) Nirvana
What hasn't already been said about Kurt Cobain's soul-baring? The painful honesty of the music - more obscurely poeticized than Art Alexakis's - was all the more heart-shearing thanks to the viscerally urgent voice behind it. The moment I heard of his death, I knew that he would be the mythic lost-voice for my generation. Our Jim Morrison or John Lennon.
The first day I heard Smells Like Teen Spirit I was living on a friend's couch before going on tour. I heard it in the afternoon on Much Music and was immediately affected by the song although I expected that I would never hear it again. It was too different. Too unique. That seems so strange now as I've heard it a million times since - either directly or in the innumerable songs that have taken their cues from it. That night I went to a dance club. I had only ever heard mainstream pop and hair metal there before. They played Smells Like Teen Spirit. The dance floor was packed... and it stayed packed. That was a moment of change. I could sense it on some level, but I would be a liar if I claimed I could tell the degree. I chalked SLTS up to a novelty and was glad to know that I could expect that that song that had intrigued me earlier was apparently going to be around for a bit. Two weeks later we were on tour and one of the pieces in the show was a parody of SLTS. That song... it hit the world like a wrecking ball.
A lot of Nirvana's lingering appeal is nostalgic. It still speaks to me, but more, it speaks to my past. I expect it always will.
8) Pearl Jam
Shortly after Nirvana turned everything I understood about music upside down, Pearl Jam came along, carrying the same banner. But never were two similar bands less alike. The musical prowress of Pearl Jam put them in a category so much apart from Nirvana's raw-elements that it seemed unfair to classify them under the same geographically rooted connection of the 'Seattle Sound.'
Ten was a revelation in it's own right. Vs. proved that they were capable of a repeat performance. Certainly most will have to declare that starting with Vitalogy that they became increasingly more experimental - and while 'increasingly' is misleading in it's implication of progression, that is essentially true. For me, Pearl Jam's eternal earnestness and commitment to the music made even the more loguey tracks worthy of respect. Certainly Yield and No Code each only offered up a few tracks that were 'vintage' Pearl Jam, but that's much of what I appreciated about them. Songs like Who You Are demonstrated their ability to continue pleasing their core fan base, while the remainder of the album explored increasingly diverse edges of their canon. What's the difference between that and R.E.M's filler? I can't say I can answer that concisely. I suspect that the difference lay in the work to follow. Binaural floored me. It will never be one of my favourite albums, but it presented a uniform vision that married the old Pearl Jam with the more experimental Pearl Jam. Riot Act managed to serve as a reasonable follow up.
But what really makes Pearl Jam special is their live material. The fifty plus 'live bootlegs' that they personally released, while being one of the supporting pillars of the band's demonstration of it's integrity - their battle with TicketMaster being another - showcase a band that gives the most when they're performing live. While I enjoy their studio albums - particularly the first three and Binaural - if I had to pick three Pearl Jam albums to listen to for the rest of my life, they'd all be live.
7) The Pixies
I have an admission to make. One which I regularly make when speaking of the Pixies.
Back in the late 80s I was writing record reviews for a college newspapaer - the CNC Free Press. A local music store would give me copies of albums to preview and I'd write the reviews. The Pixies first non-indie release, Surfer Rosa, was one of those albums. I listened to it (grudgingly) three times, and then gave it one of the two worst reviews I ever gave an album. (The other went to The Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions - another album I eventually came to love. I quit writing reviews before that year was over.) I can't recall what I said exactly - and by now the paper it was written on has turned to acidy dust. But it was not complimentary.
About three years - maybe four - passed.
I was on tour for the first time. I was watching another company's show. Actually it was pre-show, and they had music playing before the show started. I was totally enjoying it. Every song was obviously by the same band. ...and then... on came a song I recognized - the same band, again... and I realized all at once that I was listening to the Pixies album that I had run down so completely in the Free Press.
I owned all available Pixies albums within the next three months. I bought the new - and last - one as soon as it came out.
I went to see them open for U2 on the opening leg of the ZooTV tour. They were awful. Which was a bit of a let down. The next night, they broke up... although they didn't tell the world for another few months. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that their terrible live performance was a result of the fact that as a band they were hardly speaking to each other.
Over the years I picked up the bits and scraps of releases that have come out - the Purple album being the most significant. I diligently listened to The Breeders and Frank Black and Frank Black and The Catholics. I even went to see Frank Black and the Catholics with every guy I know named 'Ray'. (For those who aren't on the 'in' - Frank Black's third solo album was called Cult of Ray.) That was kind of funny. That concert was excellent. Too bad he didn't play any old Pixies songs... but can you blame him?
When they reformed last year, at first I was excited. But then... I kind of felt like hell had frozen over, Christmas came too soon and I lost my virginity all in one day and every single part was disappointing. It was the thing that wasn't supposed to happen at all... and the fact that it had seemed wrong - as exciting as it was. A myth had been destroyed.
I didn't go see them either time they went through town. I don't know how I could.
6) Soul Coughing
Okay. I was late on this bandwagon. Really late. They'd already broken up. They also only ever had three albums and a handful of one-off releases (significantly on both the X-Files soundtracks.) Really. Soul Coughing has the combined distinction of being the first band that I really discovered due to P2P sharing; and being the last band that I ever went out and bought all their back-catalogue of. I doubt I'll ever do that again... unless the world of copyright makes a sudden and unexpected shift back in favour of the music companies, but as I mentioned in a previous posting, I don't think that's likely.)
I have no idea what Mike Doughty is going on about in any of their songs. None. This band is simply very cool and very listenable. I find that anytime I play them for virtually anyone who has modern music tastes, they like Soul Coughing. Why they were never bigger than Jesus, I don't know.
If you aren't familar - for god's sake, become familiar. Chances are you'll thank yourself for it.
5) Cake
I've already spent an entire posting talking about Cake at length. I'm not going to rehash here.
4) The Clash
At the end of the 80's, Rolling Stone named London Calling the best album of the 80's. Now, considering the large amount of shear audio-pap that came from that decade that may not seem like a particularly tough position to hold. But if you look at the cream of the crop of the 80s (Including such masterworks as Synchronicity, The Joshua Tree, and Graceland [Which despite being mentioned twice in this post is not really a favourite of mine - I've never owned it, but it IS a widely recognized excellent album. My point being that 'masterwork' extends past my own tastes.] to name but a few.) it IS quite an accomplishment.
If the Rolling Stone declared that London Calling was the greatest album of all time I wouldn't personally feel the need to scoff - but instead they proved how un-hip they have been for the past 20 years by naming Sgt. Pepper's blah blah easy choice Club Band as their number one. Ya-fucking-awn.
London Calling is one of those albums that is SO good that had The Clash never released another decent album in their career (like say the SexPistols did with Never Mind the Bullocks and... nothing) they would still be recognized as music pioneers. Their subsequent albums would have sold well anyways. Hey, it worked for the Crash Test Dummies for two or three albums.
The Clash was the epitome of what was right about the original punk ethic, and they still had two excellent albums - Sandanista! and Combat Rock - and one okay one - Cut the Crap - left in them.
3) The Police
I don't think it's possible to have grown up in the Neo-Western world in the 80s and not be a fan of The Police. They were punk, post-punk, pop, reggae, rock, and even jazz all in one tight package. And the real magic was that they didn't let all those influences muddy their style - which by all right is exactly what should have happened.
If I were to make a list of my top albums of all time, Synchronicity would be in the top ten. Actually, I'm pretty confident it would be in the top five. Probably top THREE, I'm just holding out on committing to that in case I'm having a brian fart and missing a seminal work that changed my life.
A few years back I had an epiphanic exchange with the friend who, when we were teens, I discovered the Police with. I had just watched some old concert film of them - probably the widely distributed Atlanta concert - and had noted that the percieved talent balance in the band, was not as I had seen it as a teenager.
Sting naturally got most of the attention. He wrote the lion's share of the music and he sang almost all of the songs. His bass-lines ranged from admirable to excellent and he was a good-looking guy who women wanted to be with and guys wanted to be. But post-Police his output has become more and more turgid. Thankfully, it appears that there was a limit to how dull it could get and every now and then he writes a song that recalls that he was practically an autistic-savant-genius in his song-writing. Dream of the Blue Turtles his only solo album that was ever uniformly excellent, although I kept hoping, right through the Soul Cages. (All this Time from that album does rank as one of his best ever.) It makes one wonder just how much of his talent was his and how much was buoyed up by the fact that he was with two other brilliant musicians.
Andy Summers was an amazing guitarist. He was also significantly older than the other two - to the degree that they virtually idolized him and when he agreed to be in their band, it was a watershed moment for them. Haven't really heard much from Andy since the Police split, have we? Brilliant as he was, his musicianship was of the sort best not showcased. His embellishements on pre-existing structure were his true strength. Supporting and building upon and enriching someone else's work. I don't think anyone ever really had any illusions about that - his place in the band.
But then there was Stewart Copeland. Not only was the sonic conception of the group his, but his percussion work served as the anchor throughout the group's career. I don't know why I never noticed until I was watching that concert, but the Police wouldn't have been half the band without Stewart Copeland. Unfortunately I don't have the vocabulary to sufficiently express my feelings and observations on the subject of Stewart's percussion - I don't want to call it 'drumming,' that would be too limiting a term. When I mentioned the thought to Demetri - a more accomplished musician than I (not that either of us would call ourselves musicians before anything else) - he agreed whole heartedly. Sting was both the face and the structure, Andy was the flourish and decor, but Stewart was the backbone and the blueprint.
Of all the bands on this list that were making music back when I was first discovering it, the Police are the one I've neither ever have to remind myself about how great they were, and that I never find myself thinking 'oh, THAT has become quaint.'
2) The Tragically Hip
A good friend of mine once said "I used to think of the Hip as one of my favoruite Canadian bands, now I don't use the national qualifier." I don't know when I quit using the qualifier.
I do recall the first time I ever heard them. They had an immediate impact on me. I was driving in my car, on my way to a friend's house. I was about a block away when the DJ announced that he was going to play the first single from a new band from Kingston Ontario. This sort of thing of course happens all the time. The song was Small Town Bringdown and I was intrigued by it enough that even though I was parked before the chorus was over, I listened through until the end before getting out of my car. I didn't buy the album... then. I heard the song a few more times on the radio, and same with their second single, Last American Exit.
That was it, for quite a long time - practically three years. By this time I was playing in a band. The bassist (Incidentally the same fellow who I quoted in the first sentence of this section.) arrived at rehearsal with a cassette one day - Up to Here - and played it for us, demanding that we had to learn one of their songs (he had a few suggestions as to which). When we asked what the band was, he said "they're new - the Tragically Hip." I got to say "they're not as new as you think."
We did eventually learn Blow at High Dough, and in the years since I've learned dozens of Hip songs.
Why the Hip have never broken south of the border will always be a mystery, but it has been written about many times before.
One thing that seems to NOT have been written about is Gord Downie's fascination with shipwrecks. I may go in depth about it at a later time, but off the top of my head... New Orleans is Sinking; Fiddler's Green; Nautical Disaster; Scared; Titanic Terrarium; The Dire Wolf, as well as Pascal's Submarine from his second solo album all are either about shipwrecks or have imagry and/or references to them. (Not to mention any number of arguably similar themes - planes crashing, going over Niagra in a barrel.) What's that about, Gord?
Of the five best concerts I've ever been to, two of them would be the Hip - they're good on disc, but live is the real ticket. If I extended the list to ten, then probably all five Hip concerts I've been to would make the cut. They are THAT good.
Since Road Apples, I've bought (or had bought for me) every Hip album the day it was first available - except for Between Evolution which somehow slipped through the cracks for me until it was already released. The fact that I bought Between Evolution, when I have spiritually committed myself to P2P piracy, is testament to how much I respect the Hip.
Day for Night (which ranks with Synchronicity in my top 5, probable top 3) went into my CD player the night I bought it and didn't just not come out, but didn't quit playing for over a month. Honestly. I put it in and hit play and while I adjusted the volume a bit, it never stopped. I was living in an attic at the time and sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities on the floor below. I would get up in the morning and listen to it while getting dressed and as I went down stairs. I'd leave the door open and listen to it as I did my morning routine. Then when I headed off to class, I would simply close the door, rather than climb the stairs again. When I'd come home, it would welcome me in the door and back upstairs. Part of that was the time of my life, but if the album didn't resonate with me that well, it would not have happened.
1) U2
I'm almost ashamed to have such an obvious choice at number one. But I can claim to be a fan from WAY back. Pre-Joshua Tree. By now, being someone who jumped on the band-wagon at the Joshua Tree means you are practically a fan from the beginning, and most fans from pre-Joshua Tree long since gave up on the band. My type is truly rare.
I wasn't a big U2 fan until the Joshua Tree, but they were on the radar. War was a kick-ass post-punk album on my planet.
God knows there have been lows - almost all of Pop and in retrospect most of Rattle and Ho-Hum, but when they manage to put out an album like All that You Can't Leave Behind and follow it up with the solid How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, twenty five years into their career and still with the original line-up. I start to scoff at anyone who tries to claim that the Rolling Stones are the best, most long-lived rock act in the world. Give me a fucking break.
The Stones quit being relevant back when I was in high-school. By the time they were doing their 25-year Steel Wheelchairs tour, had they evolved? Nope, they were still playing the same pentatonic blues rip-off that they'd played when they first released Satisfaction in 1965. Snoozers for losers. Not that my complete lack of respect for their musical style makes them a bad band. Their lack of development makes them a bad band.
Meanwhile U2 took the chance and went off the rails a few times, but they also took chances and found themselves on entirely new tracks that led to new and interesting places. And when they made new albums that were 'returning to their roots' they found that instead they were actually melding all that had come before in familiar, yet new ways.
Live they had it all. Joshua Tree was like a religious gathering. Easily the best concert of my life. Simple yet spectaular. And when it was all done, we - the audience - sang 40 for at least that many minutes... not uncommon at U2 shows in those days. ZooTV was completely in the other direction - 100% high-tech extravaganza. That phase got out of hand two albums later. But in it's earliest portion - and it was the very earliest portion, I saw them when the ZooTV tour was still the Achtung Baby tour - it was a treat of amazing sensory overload.
And through it all they've stuck to their guns. Bono as head of the world bank, while silly, made more sense than Paul Wolfowitz. The tip of the hat that he would even be considered it testament to the sort of person he has been.
I feel proud that a band I liked before they were huge lived up to my faith in them. Not just once, but over and over again. For that reason, I doubt that they will ever be dethroned from the top place. I won't be ashamed for having such a huge pop-success as my favourite band. I thought they were good, and in time so did many many others.
Friday, April 01, 2005
From One Feeding Tube to Another...
Busy few days, coupled with a post that is proving to be quite a long time in the making...
Figured I'd weigh in on the combine Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II news.
Thank goodness that Terri's plight is over. I had a good laugh at Anne Coulter's position on it. Calling Michael Schiavo and adulterer who therefore has no right to a say in his wife's right to die is absurd.
OF COURSE HE FUCKED ANOTHER WOMAN! If he was fucking Terri - that would have been sick! Christ-almighty. Making that part of the argument is simply a desperate attempt to grab some semblance of a logical stand-point. But the logic is specious at best.
I will admit that the entire issue of the malpractice suit does grey things a bit. But the court has found in favour of him. Suck it up. Have some faith in your legal system - a system that is dominated by the RIGHT WING!
-------------
And now - just a day later - the Pope is laying on his death bed.
I find it amazing that if you go to any news-site on the web - or pick up any of this morning's papers - the death watch is front and centre.
The Pope has been close for years. I used to be in a Deadpool and practically EVERYONE picked the Pope (which reduced his worth in the pool in question). It's not like this is a big surprise.
It's not that I don't think his death is deservedly news. I just don't think his impending death is as big news as the world is making it.
Figured I'd weigh in on the combine Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II news.
Thank goodness that Terri's plight is over. I had a good laugh at Anne Coulter's position on it. Calling Michael Schiavo and adulterer who therefore has no right to a say in his wife's right to die is absurd.
OF COURSE HE FUCKED ANOTHER WOMAN! If he was fucking Terri - that would have been sick! Christ-almighty. Making that part of the argument is simply a desperate attempt to grab some semblance of a logical stand-point. But the logic is specious at best.
I will admit that the entire issue of the malpractice suit does grey things a bit. But the court has found in favour of him. Suck it up. Have some faith in your legal system - a system that is dominated by the RIGHT WING!
-------------
And now - just a day later - the Pope is laying on his death bed.
I find it amazing that if you go to any news-site on the web - or pick up any of this morning's papers - the death watch is front and centre.
The Pope has been close for years. I used to be in a Deadpool and practically EVERYONE picked the Pope (which reduced his worth in the pool in question). It's not like this is a big surprise.
It's not that I don't think his death is deservedly news. I just don't think his impending death is as big news as the world is making it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)