Sidney Crosley

To clarify, you need the Magni 2 Uber to ensure line out (Magni 2 doesn't have line out).  It's also a very solid headphone amp and well worth the money. 

Up on Amazon.ca too - $29.40 each.
 
Day For Night
 
Trouble At The Henhouse
 
Live Between Us
 
 
I've never been too much of a Hip fan, but I remember listening to Henhouse nonstop for a short period when I was 12 or 13.
 
 

This is:
1. Not a single
2. Not artwork
3. Self-promotion
4. Not even good music
 
Where's that downvote button when ya need it?

http://www.avclub.com/article/bandcamp-raises-more-100000-aclu-249718

http://www.stereogum.com/1922915/hear-father-john-misty-perform-new-13-minute-song-leaving-la/music/
 
He really knows how to fuck with people. It's track 6....

After riding the baseball cards and Beanie Babies craze, I was in need of a new investment opportunity which would result in equally poor results. 

I'm only here for the LOLz.

I'm only here for the LOLz.

I'm only here for the LOLz.

I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet: Jason Isbell has a new one out in a few weeks (July 17). I've been obsessed with a lot of his music over the last year, and I'm really excited to hear this one. Tremendous songwriter and singer.
 
http://jasonisbell.portmerch.com/stores/product.php?productid=19569&cat=359&page=1
 
 

I collect records to avoid this scenario...
 

 
 

Honestly, the three of you are all making points that don't disagree.
 
The idea what we should be divided or are divided is exactly how the Democrats lost the election.
 
 
While simplistic, Shitty Rambo's point that "Peace and equality go hand in hand." is true.  Regardless of who did it, riots and destruction need to be prosecuted is fair.  On the other hand, you need to ask WHY people are protesting and address those issues.
 
Alex's point that the statement is too simplistic is not wrong either.  While I don't condone violent reactions I understand them.  I've always had the stance that I'd never throw the first punch, but I won't hesitate to throw the second.  People who take violent recourse need to be dealt with.  The things that influenced them need to be followed up on.  It's a fair argument to say someone like Trump is not RESPONSIBLE for the action, but he is accountable.  He need to use his words and actions to renounce.  If he doesn't, then he is perpetuating the problem through silence and/or inaction.
 
And Ghost's point that division is pointless and counter-productive is definitely true.

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.

DeVos is quite frightening. As someone who works in education (though in Canada), I can foresee exactly how fucked up it will be if someone with no real understanding or care for how public schools should be run gets to take over. This is far beyond politics to me - and I'm really not sure how anything about her 'policies' could be supported by even a single republican senator. This isn't just about charter schools. This is basically about making public schools so terrible that it further restricts the potential for upward mobility that 'Merica is supposedly all about. 
 
Edit:
And also, to further my point, I think each of the last 5 presidents have made several measures that have made education in America worse and worse. Things like No Child Left Behind had, in theory, good intentions, but was a mess in roll out. 
 
Last summer I spoke to someone in a similar role to mine (special education consultant) from the suburbs of Iowa. Based on what he was saying, there was a lot of progress and amazing things happening, and his pay was enough, especially in Iowa, that his wife could stay home with the kids, and they could own three cars and a house. But I am also friends with an old message board buddy on Facebook who is a secondary teacher in Arizona, who gets paid very literally 1/3 of what I do. A total mess.

In Russia, US election rigs you!
 
 
 
 
 
I don't feel good about this post. I'm sorry. I'm still hitting the submit button.

You may just be Putin' us on. But just in case not I shall try to answer as best as I can.
 
From what i gather from all the reputable news sources, the southern US border is pretty open. You should be able to breeze right in like you own the place, but watch out the sketchy hombres. I am sure some are nice, but you know those hombres, always up to mischief. If you are worried that it might not be so easy i would do some research from home.  Born in East LA should show you everything you need to know about getting in the US. I would also watch Moscow on the Hudson to see how you might adjust to life once in the US. Although it's the highest achievement of American cinema, you may want to stay away from Red Dawn (the original, not the crappy remake) - it could be distressing. Now don't discount the  Canadian border. You may already be able to see Alaska from your house. From there its a quick southerly stroll to the American border (see ELF for details), plus all the maple syrup you can fit in your pants. Of all your plans the easiest task will be to impregnate a willing  American woman [There's no border patrol on those southern borders]. Once you politely explain your situation I am sure you'll be golden. There is an unmarried Trump daughter after all.  You may find someone back in Russia who could Putin a good word.

It's not quite like that though. I appreciate your perspective.
 
I know people who have been involved in groups sponsoring refugees. Basically the expectation is that the group help find the refugee family room and board for a year, plus supporting them in other ways (morally, sometimes helping find jobs, enrol in school, etc.).  Sponsoring refugees isn't cheap - it's about $20,000 for the year.  For many, this cost is absurd and deters them. For others, no amount of money is too much to ensure that people who have lost everything have a new start. It is nothing like the random person arriving on your doorstep. As someone who is extremely empathetic to refugees, especially given the story I shared earlier, even I probably would not let a random stranger show up on my door and expect to live with me.  Even if they were carefully vetted before arriving. But that's not how refugee sponsorship works, unless you are being responsible for a family member, in which case your description as above is valid, except for a cousin.
 
I have been able to meet and speak with recent refugees from Syria, including one amazing 17 year old who had enrolled in one of my schools (I'm a special education consultant) about his past. He worked with the drama club and helped them devise a piece about coming to Canada (where most of the school was not Canada-born, though very few were recent refugees) [sidenote: while I would usually think a devised piece of theatre made by teenagers would be terrible, it was really quite fascinating and moving]. Many refugees truly cannot believe their fortunes when they are able to come to a country where they do not fear persecution, or no longer need to live in a refugee camp somewhere in between their home country and the rest of the world, not sure if they have any future ahead of them. 
 
If you aren't interested in sponsoring a refugee, don't. I don't blame you. It's a lot to ask. I'm pretty sure 99.99% of people aren't interested. But the 0.01% who are, who feel that it is their duty to support those less fortunate. And there is a shit-ton of paperwork and time spent putting everything together to get a family to come over. And let's say this ban is overridden for now, but lawmakers find a different way to stop families from coming two months from now. Those families likely have been through the process for 6 months. And sure, there are other countries who might accept them. But that could mean another year or two living in a camp. And while it may not be death, it's a pretty shitty way to live, especially not being sure what your next step will be.

This is for the Canadian press via Arts and Crafts. I preordered it and received it today. The record is in good working order, but pages of the booklet are scrambled. They indicated on Facebook that they are delaying sending them to stores for about 3-4 more weeks to fix the printing issue. Apparently even sending replacement booklets to everyone who preordered (though I think that it's not all that necessary, but whatever). 

You didn't answer my question. 
 
I am make two assumptions here, and I am taking them at face value. 
1. You voted Trump and identify as a Trump supporter
2. You identify as pro-life. 
 
Again, no judgments. But I want you to answer this: 
 
Given Trump's recent ban of refugees from predominantly Muslim countries, even those who have gone through comprehensive background checks, do you feel that the lives of unborn fetuses are greater than those of children and adults who will surely die if they have to remain in their home country?
 

It's not quite like that though. I appreciate your perspective.
 
I know people who have been involved in groups sponsoring refugees. Basically the expectation is that the group help find the refugee family room and board for a year, plus supporting them in other ways (morally, sometimes helping find jobs, enrol in school, etc.).  Sponsoring refugees isn't cheap - it's about $20,000 for the year.  For many, this cost is absurd and deters them. For others, no amount of money is too much to ensure that people who have lost everything have a new start. It is nothing like the random person arriving on your doorstep. As someone who is extremely empathetic to refugees, especially given the story I shared earlier, even I probably would not let a random stranger show up on my door and expect to live with me.  Even if they were carefully vetted before arriving. But that's not how refugee sponsorship works, unless you are being responsible for a family member, in which case your description as above is valid, except for a cousin.
 
I have been able to meet and speak with recent refugees from Syria, including one amazing 17 year old who had enrolled in one of my schools (I'm a special education consultant) about his past. He worked with the drama club and helped them devise a piece about coming to Canada (where most of the school was not Canada-born, though very few were recent refugees) [sidenote: while I would usually think a devised piece of theatre made by teenagers would be terrible, it was really quite fascinating and moving]. Many refugees truly cannot believe their fortunes when they are able to come to a country where they do not fear persecution, or no longer need to live in a refugee camp somewhere in between their home country and the rest of the world, not sure if they have any future ahead of them. 
 
If you aren't interested in sponsoring a refugee, don't. I don't blame you. It's a lot to ask. I'm pretty sure 99.99% of people aren't interested. But the 0.01% who are, who feel that it is their duty to support those less fortunate. And there is a shit-ton of paperwork and time spent putting everything together to get a family to come over. And let's say this ban is overridden for now, but lawmakers find a different way to stop families from coming two months from now. Those families likely have been through the process for 6 months. And sure, there are other countries who might accept them. But that could mean another year or two living in a camp. And while it may not be death, it's a pretty shitty way to live, especially not being sure what your next step will be.

Have you ever heard of refugees going back to the country they had to leave and living happily ever after?
 
Think about the boats of refugees from Europe during the Holocaust. What do you think happened when they were turned away from Canada and the U.S.
 
I am Jewish, and while my grandparents left Germany for Israel in 1933 in time, many of their relatives weren't so lucky. I don't know my entire family tree, but anyone with my surname is related to me for sure. And I was in Halifax two years ago at the Canadian Museum of Immigration, where they had a plaque indicating all the names of refugees on a ship that tried to go first to New York and then to Canada. It was denied at both ports and sent back to Europe where everyone died. On that plaque along with hundreds of other names were seven or eight with my surname. And yes, it was a different time, and they would have not been legally prescreened or anything, but you have to remember that being a refugee is not the same as being an immigrant. 
 
I don't live in the states and will not make any judgments around opinions on illegal immigrants or whatnot, but refugees are not the same. And today they go through rigorous screening processes no matter what country they come from. To deny them refuge, in my opinion, is being complicit in their death. 

It's not quite like that though. I appreciate your perspective.
 
I know people who have been involved in groups sponsoring refugees. Basically the expectation is that the group help find the refugee family room and board for a year, plus supporting them in other ways (morally, sometimes helping find jobs, enrol in school, etc.).  Sponsoring refugees isn't cheap - it's about $20,000 for the year.  For many, this cost is absurd and deters them. For others, no amount of money is too much to ensure that people who have lost everything have a new start. It is nothing like the random person arriving on your doorstep. As someone who is extremely empathetic to refugees, especially given the story I shared earlier, even I probably would not let a random stranger show up on my door and expect to live with me.  Even if they were carefully vetted before arriving. But that's not how refugee sponsorship works, unless you are being responsible for a family member, in which case your description as above is valid, except for a cousin.
 
I have been able to meet and speak with recent refugees from Syria, including one amazing 17 year old who had enrolled in one of my schools (I'm a special education consultant) about his past. He worked with the drama club and helped them devise a piece about coming to Canada (where most of the school was not Canada-born, though very few were recent refugees) [sidenote: while I would usually think a devised piece of theatre made by teenagers would be terrible, it was really quite fascinating and moving]. Many refugees truly cannot believe their fortunes when they are able to come to a country where they do not fear persecution, or no longer need to live in a refugee camp somewhere in between their home country and the rest of the world, not sure if they have any future ahead of them. 
 
If you aren't interested in sponsoring a refugee, don't. I don't blame you. It's a lot to ask. I'm pretty sure 99.99% of people aren't interested. But the 0.01% who are, who feel that it is their duty to support those less fortunate. And there is a shit-ton of paperwork and time spent putting everything together to get a family to come over. And let's say this ban is overridden for now, but lawmakers find a different way to stop families from coming two months from now. Those families likely have been through the process for 6 months. And sure, there are other countries who might accept them. But that could mean another year or two living in a camp. And while it may not be death, it's a pretty shitty way to live, especially not being sure what your next step will be.

Have you ever heard of refugees going back to the country they had to leave and living happily ever after?
 
Think about the boats of refugees from Europe during the Holocaust. What do you think happened when they were turned away from Canada and the U.S.
 
I am Jewish, and while my grandparents left Germany for Israel in 1933 in time, many of their relatives weren't so lucky. I don't know my entire family tree, but anyone with my surname is related to me for sure. And I was in Halifax two years ago at the Canadian Museum of Immigration, where they had a plaque indicating all the names of refugees on a ship that tried to go first to New York and then to Canada. It was denied at both ports and sent back to Europe where everyone died. On that plaque along with hundreds of other names were seven or eight with my surname. And yes, it was a different time, and they would have not been legally prescreened or anything, but you have to remember that being a refugee is not the same as being an immigrant. 
 
I don't live in the states and will not make any judgments around opinions on illegal immigrants or whatnot, but refugees are not the same. And today they go through rigorous screening processes no matter what country they come from. To deny them refuge, in my opinion, is being complicit in their death. 

You didn't answer my question. 
 
I am make two assumptions here, and I am taking them at face value. 
1. You voted Trump and identify as a Trump supporter
2. You identify as pro-life. 
 
Again, no judgments. But I want you to answer this: 
 
Given Trump's recent ban of refugees from predominantly Muslim countries, even those who have gone through comprehensive background checks, do you feel that the lives of unborn fetuses are greater than those of children and adults who will surely die if they have to remain in their home country?
 

Regardless of how anyone feels about killing babies, how does this differ than basically refusing refugees who were already approved to enter the US, leaving them to die. If you want to say that fetuses have the right to life fine, then you do that, but how can you also deny the right to life of other living humans who have not done anything wrong other than literally share a religion with one billion other people, a tiny handful of which are extremists.