randomsummer

https://jonsiandalex.com/get/lostandfound Variations on some Riceboy Sleeps tracks, somewhat more ambient than the originals. Pretty good, IMO. Pretty excited to see them perform in NYC on Halloween.

Awesome, thanks! I really enjoyed vol. 1 and am looking forward to going through this one.

Sideways, but with commentary from Giamatti and Church. A few nuggets of insight, but it was basically Giamatti and Church in a competition to see who could wordsmith the most obscure references. Church won.

Downton Abbey

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Sorry if I can't articulate it well enough, I have problems with that sometimes. I'm saying that people should vote for the candidate that best represents themselves and their views. Tally up the votes, and the candidate with the most votes wins, which should be the one that represents the most amount of people. Everyone who didn't vote for the winner has to compromise, but that's OK because theoretically the winner will represent the largest subsection of voters. I'm completely fine with the fact that I have to compromise if my choice doesn't get elected, that just means that my views don't necessarily align with the largest section of voters and I'm fine with that. I don't want the government to serve me personally, I want it to serve the largest amount of people possible. Now I get that if there are only two candidates, people will have to compromise and vote for the one of the two that most closely aligns with their values, but this is why I think the primaries are more important than the general election. For example, I know a lot of Dems who hated HRC but didn't vote in the primaries, then because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC they just didn't vote, maybe also because they didn't think Trump could actually win. All I'm saying is that, throughout the entire process, people need to participate and vote for who they want to represent them. And then if their candidate doesn't make it, compromise and vote for the person who is closest to their views. Here's my issue: in the last election, I really didn't think that HRC represented the largest section of Dem voters. I'm not just talking about the narrative that Bernie got shafted, he may or may not have, I don't really care. I felt like the people leading the Dems decided that HRC was going to be their nominee no matter what, and I didn't like that they made that choice for everyone which is why I didn't vote for her. I felt like I would be endorsing their tactics and emboldening them to do it again next time. Of course my perception could've been wrong and I'm willing to accept the consequences.

I see both of your points. The point I was trying to make is that I wonder how many people compromise, like you say, and vote for the lesser of two evils because they're afraid of what might happen if the other guy wins. I wonder if there are enough people who, if they voted how they really felt, could make a difference and shift the system to get candidates that actually serve the people they're supposed to represent. I know it's idealistic, but it's the way it's supposed to work and I just don't want to resign myself to saying, "well that's the way it is so I guess I'll just compromise." I'm asking what would happen if we didn't compromise and actually tried to take control of things. The government is supposed to serve the people, but I feel that the candidates that both parties keep pushing forward hardly do that and if we keep compromising like this, they're going to keep pushing the limits and serving their own interests over the people's until we eventually reach a tipping point where enough people are in shitty enough situations where they'll be motivated enough to act.

I'm tired of this narrative. Sure if only 1 person does it that's true, but what if everyone who is fed up with this bullshit did it. Would it be a vote for Trump then? I feel like this was HRC's whole platform, "you'd better vote for me because you don't want Trump in office, right?" What if I voted for Biden? I would consider that throwing away my vote because I don't want him to be president.

Which is why ALL of the sane people who just want a functioning government need to give them all the middle finger by voting but writing in their choice. It's never gonna happen, but wouldn't it be great if there was a statistically large number of write-in votes? I feel that's the only way to alter the course of where it seems we're headed, because the establishment on both sides would realize they've lost party-line voters and perhaps make some changes to try to get them back. But as it is, the narrative is that if you don't vote your party line, you're throwing your vote away.

Of course they do. I'll bet this divisiveness has greatly increased viewership, and the media doesn't want to lose out on that. Everyone is tuning in either to see what boneheaded thing Trump said this time or to get upset about the latest things the "libtards" want to take from them.

My trappist / Belgian cap holder is almost full: Also, I have an Orval in my basement that will turn 5 years old this month, I am gonna try to have it next to a young Orval to see how different they are.

I bought a NM Revised complete set a few years back for a few grand, now the value has almost doubled thanks to the reserved list.

Same.

When you try to tax corporations more, they will just find ways to get around it, like having an office in Ireland with 1 person and having all the money go through there. Big companies have entire departments dedicated to decreasing their tax liability. At the site where I work (for a very large company), they keep a certain percentage of the site as grassland and they pay local farmers to harvest the hay so that the site can be classified as a farm and pay much less property tax. Point is, it would be extremely difficult to close all of the loopholes that are out there right now. I heard someone say something interesting, forget where I heard it, that it would be nice if we were able to have different tax schemes for corporations depending on what they produced. For example, lower taxes on businesses that actually manufacture goods for people, and highest taxes on companies that only make money off of money, like banks and investing firms. I have no idea if that could even make a difference, I'm not an economist, but it seems that we should reward beneficial goods and services over just increasing wealth which is I guess the result of our capitalist system.

Oh, Sleepy Joe...

One thing I love about super furry animals is their lyrics, they're often quite clever and meaningful, while also being silly which is a tough balance. I also love the amount of "nonsense words" that they use, like "la la la"s and "do do do"s . I got bored at work and decided to go through all of their albums (including b-sides) and counted these words for fun (main vocals only, I didn't count these in backing vocals) la 1223 sha 58 ah 15 da 87 ba 300 na 125 ha 8 ho 8 do 384 ooh 159 mmm 4 oh 311 bum 30 wooh 13 waah 2 aaah 11 yeah 11 total 2749 tracks 152 words per track 18.08553 the most dense track is the Guerrilla b-side "colorblind" with 180 "la"s and 4 "sha"s. I didn't even bother to count the "beep beep boop boop..." scat in the middle of that track either. Mario Man and Gypsy Space Muffin are close behind, both with 180 "do"s, while Cardiff in the Sun and Valet Parking both have 176 of "la"s "sha"s and "ba"s. all 30 "bum"s are from nO.K. across albums they hold steady around 18 - 20 nonsense words per track except for a dip on Mwng and an unexplained dip on Radiator, with a surge on Love Kraft and Dark Days / Light Years: album words per track fuzzy logic 21.82 radiator 10.50 guerrilla 21.85 mwng 1.50 rings around the world 20.75 phantom power 18.69 love kraft 25.14 hey venus! 14.40 dark days / light years 26.08