nefariousfig

alangrey gets a thumbs up from me.

I think it's important to keep sight of the fact that there is no reason for a few overzealous protesters to discredit the thousands of others there who are peacefully expressing their anger with the current system. And as the blog you link to points out, it's often the protesters themselves who dissaude others from the more extreme measures and prevent things from escalating too much. And while I don't necessarily approve of it, I can understand the frustration of meeting police resistance for simply trying to peacefully assemble/protest (because god forbid you didn't stick to the designated 'protest zones') and feeling that, in the heat of the moment, a rock through a corporate shop is a good idea. Who hasn't done stupid shit when they were frustrated? I'm not going to deny that some protesters likely went with the specific intention of causing damage regardless of what happened, but it's a pretty small minority. And is minor property damage really something to get that annoyed and indignant over? Also, the "waste of money that these protesters are causing" that you mention is actually good for the economy. It's part of the whole perverse economic system that's being protested (and there's indeed a certain irony there) - damage and destruction are good for the GDP (our measure of 'progress') because the GDP counts work that results from repairing harm. So the resulting clean up and repairs following property damage results in increased economic activity and thus boosts the GDP. I really don't get why people here are so cynical towards protests. Even if you don't like some of the methods, at least try to get a more rounded picture of what's going on instead of focusing on the few bad apples.

While what you say is correct, I disagree with your removing of grocery stores from the equation as though they're not at all complicit. It's somewhat akin to saying that Wal-Mart has little-to-no responsibility for the reprehensible conditions under which most of their items are made because they're not the ones who are actually making the products. But the problems stem from the business models that these types of places have created. The truth is that grocery stores (both the massive ones and the smaller ones) are, at least in part, an enabler of this broken food system. The notion of stores that sell mass quantities of food for low prices is an extraordinarily important link in the modern Western food chain. We're completely accustomed to extremely low prices, having most fruits and vegetables available regardless of season, processed food, massive choice and quantity, etc. And because of this grocery store model, we've become entirely reliant on the companies who can best capitalize on this lifestyle through the most cut throat of practices. I'm not taking some holier-than-thou attitude here - I shop at grocery stores most of the time, and I agree that protesting grocery stores isn't the most effective form of action. But at the same time, it's not like grocery stores are completely removed from the whole G20/globalization debate.

Just to add some insight that no one really asked for, grocery stores can be problematic in that they support global food chains that are pretty unethical. They utilize extraordinarily exploitative labour from global south countries, destroy the environment in transporting food to the north, cover foods in pesticides and all sorts of other chemicals to preserve them in their transportation, hurt local farmers who can't compete with such insanely low prices (nor selection), etc. Our whole food system is extremely broken and unsustainable. And in the most basic and cliche sense, grocery stores are simply monuments to waste and overconsumption.

Excellent; thanks for the info.

I suppose this is more of a CD question than a vinyl question, but does anyone know if The Lawrence Arms CDs sold in the VC store (Ghost Stories and Guided Tour...) have new art that matches the art on the most recent LP represses of those albums?

I feel compelled to come to the defense of Michael Cera. Admittedly nearly all of his roles have been the same awkward, bumbling teenager-type, but I think he has a lot of potential. His web series Clark and Michael was absolutely hilarious, and while he didn't completely modify his typical persona, he played much more of obnoxious and arrogant ass than a awkward sweetheart. I feel that once his current stardom dies down a bit, he'll start to branch out more into different roles.

I remember many years ago, not long after Ghost Stories had come out, reading a really good interview with Brendan. The interview was from the A Guided Tour... era, and in it Brendan went through every song on that album and essentially gave commentary on it. And I think he might have acknowledged the cheesiness of that line. It does make sense in the context of the song, but it's still kind of dumb. I wish I could find that interview again; it was pretty interesting. I think he also talked about the breakup of The Broadways too, though I may be melding together in my mind two different interviews that I read back then.

Really? It's probably true, but I felt that the show has looked progressively cheaper as it has gone along. Like, they seem to use more quick and cheap sets rather than using location shooting for everything. Not to mention the dropoff in writing - I loved season 1, thought season 2 was okay, but didn't much care for 3. Dexter himself is the only really interesting part of the show, and yet with each season they've been spending increasingly more time on side characters (who are terribly written). And the writers keep on setting up potentially interesting climaxes, but then introduce some deus ex machina near the end of the season that solves everything. And I don't know if it's the actress or the scripts (probably a bit of both), but Debra has become so annoying and one-dimensional. Do we really need a love story involving her in every season? /rant I guess I'm just annoyed because when the show is in top form, it's soooo good. But when it's bad, it's utterly cringe-inducing. Season 4 really needs to put the focus back on Dexter (Michael C Hall acts circles around everyone else in the show) and put the other characters in the periphery where they belong.

Marcus/jaggedthoughts sent my records quickly and packaged them perfectly. He gets my seal of approval.

Yeah, Interpunk never checks off the "gift" box, so I've been dinged for custom charges a few times after ordering stuff from them. I now avoid placing any sort of remotely large order through them at all costs.

The absolute best place for Toronto concert listings used to be Zoilus' gig guide (http://www.zoilus.com/gig_guide.php), but it seems he stopped updating that a month or so ago. Beyond that, I use the ticket listings of Rotate This (http://rotate.com/tickets.php) and Soundscapes (http://www.soundscapesmusic.com/tickets/) to see what's going on in Toronto. They don't cover everything, but they provide a pretty good idea of the shows occurring in the punk and indie scenes. And while I rarely use them, Now Magazine (http://www.nowtoronto.com/music/listings/) and Eye Weekly (someone linked to it above, but again: http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/musicchart) could also be useful

I always find it odd that people choose AA as the company to take a moral stand against. I suspect it has to do with how AA has become the poster-company for the most obnoxious type of 'hipster' (whom I agree are super annoying). AA has a lot of terrible shit on its hands - from preventing unionization to their ridiculous sexism and Dov Charney being one of the biggest fuckheads on the planet - and these things are certainly worthy of boycotting the company for. But their labour standards are also leaps and bounds better than the vast majority of major clothing brands that most people (many of whom boycott AA) wear without question. I really don't know if I can properly emphasize how much better they are than most major brands. I'm doing an M.A. right now and my area of research revolves around labour standards and sweatshops, and I can say without hesitation that the conditions of AA's factories can't even be compared to most other places. Which is not to say that they're even close to being great, but is rather testament to how terrible most company's labour standards are. The KnowMore article that someone linked to earlier is an excellent resource - it points out the many problems with AA, but also talks at great length about the general progressiveness of the organization. AA provides workers a living wage, offers cheap health plans, free English classes, libraries, subsidized bus passes, massages, help with immigration documents, etc. What other garment manufacturers do that? I realize I'm probably coming off as some sort of AA crusader, which isn't really the case - while I do own a bit of AA clothing (I find they're one of few companies whose clothing actually fits relatively short males such as myself), I would much prefer if people bought from thrift stores or more ethical companies such as No Sweat. But as someone really concerned with labour rights, I feel it's important that AA's progressive labour practices be highlighted, especially in comparison to most of the companies we as consumers unquestioningly buy stuff from. AA still has a long way to go with their labour issues, and their pervasive sexism/harrassment is despicable and certainly worthy of boycotting, but they're WAY more progressive than the vast majority of corporations. Sorry, I guess I got a little carried away. My general point is that AA can be considered worthy of boycott, but I truly hope that you're also boycotting countless other clothing brands for committing far worse worker violations. Oh, and if you just don't like their clothes, that's alright too.

I really liked seasons 1-4 of Scrubs, but I felt that the show really lost its way during the 5th season and I stopped watching it during the 6th. I had heard elsewhere that season 8 was somewhat of a return to form, but the sentiment here seems to suggest otherwise.

I've watched a few of this kid's videos before, and I find them way too sad to laugh at. This is a kid that has serious problems, and him posting this shit on YouTube was pretty much the worst thing he could've done. In one of his previous videos, he talks about his views on same-sex marriage (he's against it), and makes a passing reference to how he 'used to be' gay. The hypocrisy was, of course, not lost on the masses of anonymous internet users, and the floodgates opened (which lead to him feeling compelled to make the video you've posted). But this is simply a young kid, quite possibly with some genuine development issues and struggling with massive self-repression, and he really doesn't deserve the derision and anguish that he's getting. Obviously he shouldn't have put this stuff on the internet, but I don't quite take that as a free pass to laugh at it.