VAGUE SPACE

Vague Space Tour de France Preview

This weekend marks the start of the greatest annual sporting event in the world, the Tour de France.  And this year we are missing the winners from 2007, 2009, and 2010 in the form of Alberto Contador (still suspended) and Andy Schleck (broken pelvis in a crash at the Dauphine), leaving the podium spots fairly wide open going into the race.  Defending champ Cadel Evans is here and the course definitely suits him, but he will be challenged by pre-race favorite Bradley Wiggins, who has had a year to remember, and dominated Evans in the Dauphine just a couple weeks ago.  The reason Wiggins is the favorite though is the presence of 100 km of time trialing in this year's Tour, a departure from recent mountain-heavy races that only had a single time trial.  Wiggins is the best overall GC contender at time trialing -- he was for years a specialist in the pursuit a la Fabian Cancellara but lost a bunch of weight to compete in the mountains and has maintained his time trial form.  So even though Evans can do a mean time trial (besting Andy Schleck by enough on the final stage of last year's Tour to wrestle victory from him), he's not quite in Wiggins' league.  So he will need to take time out of him in the mountains, which is not exactly Evans' strength -- he usually responds to attacks and doesn't initiate, since he always has the time trial superiority over the likes of the Schlecks and other mountain goats.  This year, though, the extra 50 km against the clock has everyone picking Wiggins to win.  He has the stronger team (Sky, although Evans' relative lack of support from BMC last year didn't hurt him).  He's the better time trialist.  And he's on the the better form.  He's also British and the Brits are hosting the Olympics at the end of the month so it seems fitting.  But Wiggins' best place in a Tour de France was a 4th in 2009 so he's not exactly got a lot of experience on the podium in this event.  Evans had two 2nds in 2007 and 2008 before winning it all last year.  He has definitely been there before.  It will be a monster battle, even without Contador and Schleck.  I can't wait.

The Alternative Plan

I've been to a few places recently (like the middle of Pennsylvania) where voters aren't as pro-Obama as those here in central Jersey, something that is somewhat inexplicable to me.  I do sort of see the whole "we're not doing so great under Obama" belief but I do not at all understand how any thinking American can see the destruction of the economy that Republican rule under Bush created and think "hey, let's put the same guys with the same ideas back in charge of our country!"  It is really one of the most inexplicable decisions I think anyone could make.  I could see you voting for Romney if you really hate Obama's social stances, but his beliefs on those issues are by and large popular (outside of the racist parts of the country).  But supporting Romney for economic reasons?  That just makes no sense.  I really may need to run this chart every week until the election.  Because this is the Romney / Paul Ryan Republican alternative to running the economy.  Just take a look.  Seriously.  Even the Bush tax cuts that bankrupted our country were not nearly this bad. 

The plan would result in at least $4.5 trillion less revenue over the next decade (yes I said trillion) but the "deficit conscious unless a Republican is president" Republicans claim their plan will be revenue neutral.  How do you cut $4.5 trillion in revenue and remain neutral?  Paul Ryan says through the elimination of loopholes.  The only loopholes that come close are such things as the mortgage interest deduction and the tax exclusion on employer health care benefits.  Get rid of them and the $7000 a married couple making between $100,000 and $200,000 (most of the anti-Obama crowd that I personally speak to, by the way) would be swamped by increases through elimination of loopholes.

The net result: Married couples in the $100K to $200K range would pay an additional $2,700 annually to the Internal Revenue Service, on top of the tax increases that are scheduled to hit every American household when the George W. Bush-era cuts expire at the end of the year.

Households earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.

Those making under $100,000 a year (or, most Americans) would see little, if anything, back in our pockets, while the top of the top 1 percent would make out like bandits.

Remember, this is just the tax side of the Ryan plan. The devastating cuts to offset the revenue losses and still tackle the deficit hits everything from Pell Grants to Medicaid and Medicare and would put even bigger burdens on low-income and middle-class America.

This is the Republican plan for America, led by Paul Ryan and endorsed by Mitt Romney: protect the rich and screw everyone else.

Free Music

David Lowery of the '90s alternative band Cracker (who I believe may still be putting out music) writes a highly informative and cogent article over at The Trichordist about the death of modern music via file sharing, a response to a blog post by an NPR intern named Emily White, who writes how she has 11,000 songs in her iTunes but only bought 15 CDs in her life.  She's 21 and that's what her generation does, she says, and as someone who isn't 21 and doesn't know what it's like to have music for "free" all his life, I don't know if she's a special case or not (likely not) but Lowery, in as nice a way as possible, tells her that she's basically being unethical, she's stealing, and she is killing the music industry that she loves (and hopes to work for one day).  You should go read Lowery's article.  Probably read Emily White's first, for reference, but definitely read Lowery.  It's very revelatory about details of the music business but also common sense and  really well written (Lowery teaches a music business class at the University of Georgia). 

As someone who posts copyrighted material on this very forum and as someone who's downloaded his share music for "free" in his life, but also someone who buys a ton of music, talks up bands and links to them when possible, and supports them through concerts and T-shirts, I'm a bit on both sides of this issue.  I've long thought that the availability of "free" music on the Internet in some ways helps artists, particularly indie rock artists, whose songs can get sampled by potential listeners who would then go on to buy the album, see the concert, buy the T-shirt.  Classic marketing.  That was the case when I started this blog and that's how I discovered new music -- everyone from Arcade Fire to Wolf Parade to Sigur Ros to Japandroids I discovered in some way or another by downloading songs for free online and falling in love.  I wouldn't download an album of a band I didn't know otherwise and I would buy the stuff (and go to the shows) if I liked what I heard.  I hoped (or maybe dreamed) that most of my readers and most indie rock fans did the same.  These artists are largely not signed to major labels (corporations) who keep 90+% of any record sales $, these bands are almost by definition on independent labels, making upwards of 50% of sales $, and as such, the fans would support them (as I did).  Not just download a song on my website and never buy an actual CD.  But Ms. White appears to be an actual indie rock fan and she's never (or very rarely) bought an actual CD in her life.  And sure, as a college student, she probably has a lot less disposable income than me (and she uses it for concerts), but when I was in college, I paid for music (we didn't exactly have the Internet back then... we had something called "Prodigy" -- yes, I'm old).  So the excuse doesn't really hold up.  And as Lowery says quite clearly, she's writing her piece to explain that she feels she's flirting with an unethical act but claims that it's not convenient to buy music (or not as convenient as free music).  Which isn't really true anymore.  ITunes is pretty damned convenient (if a little pricey for a single song) and Pandora has a paid model which gives money to artists.  But that's all in the Lowery article.  The point is she isn't paying for music not because it's inconvenient but because she believes it should be free and the artist should adapt (or the industry, and maybe the government should do something to compensate the artist so that users can keep using their stuff for free).

Come On!

My Favorite Hate Song from College

Song:  "Shiver & Shake"
Artist:  The Cure
Album:  Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me
Year:  1987

• Download The Cure - "Shiver & Shake".mp3

  "You're just three sick holes that run like sores, you're a fucking waste."

This song appeared on random play on my iPhone the other day and reminded me of how much I used to love this song, back in college when I first heard it (in fact there is a specific person that I used to think the lyrics spoke to me about but let's not get into that).  And the lyrics are indeed pretty "shocking" or they were when I first heard it, and are still pretty awesome today.  But I was surprised at the music, just how good it was (or still is).  I've long since lost my love for The Cure, but they were the first "alternative" band I ever got into -- my purchase of Disintegration in 1989 was the impetus for my permanent move away from the mainstream music I'd liked to that point -- and it's good to hear that such a beautiful song still makes me smile.  I'm not sure I have that kind of hate anymore though, or at least not directed toward any one person in particular.  Except my foot surgeon. 

You're just a waste of time.
You're just a babbling face.
You're just three sick holes that run like sores,

You're a fucking waste.

You're like a slug on the floor,
Oh you're useless and ugly,
And you're useless and ugly,
And I shiver and shake,
When I think of how you make me hate.

I want to smash you to pieces.
I want to smash you up and screaming.
I want to smash you helpless down on the floor
Smash you until you're not here anymore

And I shiver and shake.

 

Funny Poll Results

Showing that Republicans, at least in Nevada, think the seedier side of heterosexuality is way way way less offensive than the most stable part of gay relationships.  I'm not sure whether this means they approve of watching two women together for pay as long as they aren't married or not.  Backwards assholes.

From Public Policy Polling:

66% of Nevada Republicans support brothels, 20% support gay marriage #familyvalues: http://t.co/...
— @ppppolls via web

 

His Way of Praying

Mark Wahlberg was on Howard Stern yesterday discussing his new movie Ted (which looks awesome by the way) and Howard asked about his apparent re-discovery of religion, to which Mark replied that he goes to church every single day, either to a service or to pray, even when he is on the road (like he was to come into the show).  Howard, who is not religious but speaks about it with honesty and much more reverance than religious people typically afford atheism, asked Mark what he prays about when he attends church every day -- jokingly asking if he's praying for the success of Ted.  Mark said he did not pray for personal success (of course) but "first and foremost, I pray for those less fortunate, for the troubled and starving...".  That's the part of the interview that made me want to write this post.  Whether or not Mark is being honest or just saying what you're supposed to say, I think that it's both a laudable thing to do -- pray for others less fortunate -- and also a hugely stupid waste of his time.  And I don't mean to pick on Wahlberg particularly, because there are plenty of people that do this, even on a daily basis, but I'm just using his example to illustrate the larger point that struck me here.  As someone who does not believe in religion or that praying could possibly do anything other than perhaps result in some inner peace for the person praying, I find it to be a huge waste of effort for Wahlberg to spend every morning praying for poor people, particularly when he could be spending that time actually helping poor people.  There are a million charitable organizations begging for time and money to support poor people and Wahlberg could find them in every city he is in, just like he can find a church.  Hell, there's a lot of churches who have soup kitchens and other charities that he could volunteer for.  You know, since he's got some much time on his hands to go to church every day.  Maybe he could actually help these people instead of praying for some imaginary dude in the sky to help them.  And even if you do believe in that imaginary dude in the sky, I kind of think you would expect him to know about the poor people without your prayers having to remind him.

Now let me say, Wahlberg might do a shitload of charity outside of his church (or inside of it).  And churches in general do a lot of charity work.  They also do a shitload of evil things in the world but I won't get into that here.  So if Wahlberg is charitable with his time and money, he's probably a hell of a lot more charitable than I am.  All my gifts are monetary and I don't volunteer my time so I really have no right to criticize Wahlberg for going to church every day and praying for poor people but the point I'm making is if he (or anyone) is going to put his actual time (and money) into trying to help poor people, he should stop fucking waste his time at church doing it.  I don't blame Wahlberg for going to church every day -- it must make him happy -- but I guess I wish he would just admit that he's doing it for himself and wasting his own time and what he's doing ain't got nothing to do with anyone poor in the world.  Of course, if you don't believe praying does anything useful then you are likely wise enough not to buy into religion in the first place, so that might be a bit too much to ask of Marky Mark.  Or the 80% of Americans who agree with him.

• Download The Jesus & Mary Chain - "Her Way of Praying".mp3

Vague Space Sports Report

Sports?  Yes.  Sports.  It's that time of the year when Vague Space turns its attention back to the sports world in the form of the upcoming Tour de France.  Back in the day, this blog used to be a forum for baseball and football and other sports news but you can pretty much get that anywhere anytime and I don't actually watch enough of other sports to bring an informed opinion on the subject (Syracuse basketball being the sole exception).  But I have been following a lot of sports lately so here's a quick update on what's happening in the world of games from someone still in constant, burning, neverending, unimaginable toe pain that he can't even think about playing any kind of sport or even go to the gym.  Hence, me watching a lot of sports on TV.

Euro 2012 - Russia was upset by Greece on Saturday to bounce them out of the tournament, as Greece and the Czech Republic became the first two survivors into the quarterfinals.  Which is surprising for several reasons, not just that Russia beat the Czechs 4-1 just a week earlier.  But also, while watching the end of the Greece game they kept referring to 2004, so I did a quick Wiki search and lo and behold, the Greeks won the tournament that year.  Shows how much I'm paying attention to the sport in years where the World Cup isn't played.  Anyway, Germany is the supposed heavy favorite but Spain is ranked #1 in the world.  I don't quite understand that, nor do I quite understand why it's so freaking hard for anyone to score, I mean back when I played soccer in high school, our opponents scored on us all the time.  And they were high school students!  In America!  Doesn't make much sense.  But I have enjoyed the portions of matches I've watched and even the single goal I've seen scored in 731 minutes of action.  Go football!  Bonus viewing pleasure:  watching up close the European nations that are about to throw the world back into a catastrophic recession as a result of austerity measures to deal with the first recession, the same failed policies pushed by Republicans in the U.S. to deal with our troubles, and when Europe collapses and our limping recovery implodes along with it, we will elect the very same Republicans in the fall.  Go democracy!

Spencer in Spin

I realize this is the third post about Spencer Krug in the past week but if I could fill this blog's pages with only news about Mr. Krug and his bandmates, I probably would.  Anyway, he was in SPIN magazine this week, being interviewed, which I think is kind of a big deal because at least at some point that was kind of a major music publication.  Anyway, "To the Moon and Beyond" (lame title I know)

Best/worst quote:  "I totally miss them," Krug says of his old bandmates. "Wolf Parade is like family. But it's like any relationship, they end for a reason and it's unhealthy to force them to stay in existence."

Best guest appearance by the immortal Dan Bejar:  "His stamp is on any piece of music he touches, more than maybe anyone I've ever played with in a way that is both undeniable and selfless," explains fellow British Colombian Dan Bejar, a.k.a. Destroyer, who formed the knotty Swan Lake with Krug and Frog Eye's Carey Mercer. "I associate a song that is his as something that is not gonna get fucked with for no good reason."

Best shout-out to the fans:  "Wolf Parade had a real built-in audience by the time we hit our third record," Krug says of his beloved indie rock band, which dissolved last summer. "There were some really loyal, amazing fans that followed us along. But the Moonface fanbase is starting from scratch. If it's ever going to come it has to be earned, which is good. It's the way it should be."

• Download Moonface (with Siinai) - "Heartbreaking Bravery".mp3

• Buy Heartbreaking Bravery

Buffy Rules

A month ago Buffy the Vampire Slayer was named the winner of TV March Madness, crowned as the greatest show in television history, to much controversy among my friends (none of whom ever watched the show).  I'm not one to say I told you so, but I guess I need smarter friends...

 

 

Buffy the Vampire Slayer by a mile. More than twice as many papers, essays, and books have been devoted to the vampire drama than any of our other choices—so many that we stopped counting when we hit 200. Buffy even has its own journal: Slayage, a publication of the Whedon Studies Association (named for the show’s creator, Joss Whedon), which features titles like “Real Vampires Don’t Wear Shorts: The Aesthetics of Fashion in Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Killing us Softly? A Feminist Search for the ‘Real’ Buffy.”

While the resulting numbers are by no means exact, Gary Handman, the Media Resources Center’s long-time director and website curator, said the result sounded about right to him. “There is so much written about Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” he said, adding, “it’s bone-breakingly weird.”

While not a fan of the show himself, Handman speculated that academics were intrigued by the devotion of its fans. (NPR’s All Things Considered tackled the question of academic interest in Buffy back in 2003.) Handman couldn’t name a television show with more written about it than Buffy, though he said The Wire seems to be catching up. He also suggested Star Trek and The Sopranos as popular choices among the titles we didn’t consider. “Oddly,” he said, “Mad Men doesn’t have a lot written about it.”