[video]
“
don’t forget: i’m CHOOSING to spend all this money making the packages fancy as shit….and i’m CHOOSING to tour this way. EXPENSIVELY.
i could send you all cheap-ass jewel case CDs, fire my staff, make a cheap book on xerox paper, and tour just with a solo piano…with no crew, no band….and RAKE IN THE DOUGH.
i mean: i could potentially do that and walk with close to half a million dollars. but the products would suck and the tour would be a solo piano tour. and nobody would ever trust me again.
i’ve been running my life this way for years, bouncing up and down financially and just making sure i always had enough money to do WHAT I WANTED, and do it RIGHT.
it may be what makes me different, fundamentally, from a lot of pop artists. i’m almost never looking at the monetary bottom line, i’m always looking at the creative bottom line. the happiness index of my life and creative self, not the amount of dough i’ll have in the bank at the end of a project. (it can drive a manager crazy.)
so
to answer the question:
yes.
i’m loaded.
loaded with awesomeness.
and…no.
in no fucking case scenario do i get a check for $1,000,000 and laugh my way to the bank, then book a private jet to ibiza where a limo filled with hookers and blow will be waiting to escort me to a slamming nightclub called “la uno percento” where i then spend my time contemplating my handsome nose job in the darkened mirrored bathrooms (probably weeping).
and you know what else? if i wind up truly loaded someday, it means i’ll probably buy an abandoned church somewhere and turn it into a free 24-hour circus brunch bar for everybody. cross your fucking fingers. we’ll all win.
stay tuned.
this is just the beginning.
LOVE,
afp
Commuting By Kayak Has Multiple Benefits -
Two New Jersey men have found a way around high gas prices and traffic jams. The mile long trip from Hoboken across the Hudson River to their Manhattan office takes about a half-hour to paddle. They also get their exercise in for the day.
This can be life nao, plz? (Well, except for the New Jersey/Manhattan part…)
[video]
(via)
…one giant, painful leap to the bottom of the stairs.
I don’t feel at all terrible about the fact I’ve been laughing at this for the last 20 minutes
“It’s important to realize that no matter what crazy thought that enters your head, there’s now a minor media outlet out there willing to tell you that you are right…And we get trapped in the sort of reality dysmorphia, this idea that we can just view what it is that we want to see in the world without that actually being attached to reality.” — Clay Johnson on a healthier “Information Diet” (via newshour)
Just thought you guys should know this, because it’s a nice change of pace for me!
Ari Kohen recently posted a video of Ann Althouse discussing Gay marriage with Glenn Loury. Ari summarizes the video thusly:
Both Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse have gay sons. And, in this clip, both of them argue that we shouldn’t consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be akin to bigotry. Loury goes a few steps farther, in fact, and claims that a charge of bigotry really amounts to demagogic politics and that people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious or cultural grounds are morally serious and ought not to be dismissed out of hand.
Ari comments:
But it’s never entirely clear why Loury and Althouse believe that the views these people espouse are so morally serious or why we ought to refrain from referring to their condemnation of homosexuality as bigotry. From listening to them, my sense is that their argument rests on the presumption that religious people are morally serious and, as such, they reflect on the tenets of their faiths before coming to their conclusions about matters like same-sex marriage.
That’s all well and good, if it’s true. But it doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t think of it as bigotry. That someone believes something to be true and arrives at his or her belief in a serious manner doesn’t exempt him or her from being challenged on that belief, especially when that belief might impact the lives of others.
If Ann and Glenn have gay sons, then they clearly understand that being gay is not a morally culpable choice. I’d go so far as to say they probably understand that it is no more of a morally culpable choice than being born with heterosexual proclivities. They probably also understand that this isn’t a matter of “approving of one’s lifestyle.” Being gay is, of course, not a lifestyle. It is an inborn trait. Again, I’m certain that Ann and Glenn are aware of this. I’m certain they’re also aware that, while sexuality is mutable, it is not something that can be forced on people. There is a fairly robust degree of certainty in the medical community that attempting to change someone’s sexuality by force has the potential to inflict extreme psychological damage on that individual. So I assume that Ann and Glenn are not making their argument on the supposition that people who view homosexuality as a morally culpable choice are coming to a valid conclusion.
Yet that is precisely the conclusion that many people who oppose same-sex marriage have come to. 8% of North Carolina voters think that being gay should be a felony. That’s roughly 1 out of every 12 people in North Carolina. That’s significant. Do Ann and Glenn give these people a people a pass because they came to this conclusion in a morally serious manner? Surely they don’t support felonization of their own children. But by their logic, we should respect these peoples’ opinions and not label them bigots because they came to their conclusions in a morally serious manner.
The text-book definition of bigotry is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions or prejudices,” or “one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred or intolerance.” At common law, a felony was crime so heinous and injurious to society that those who committed it were deemed to deserve the penalty of death. Today, a felon can be denied the right to vote, own a gun, access public housing, food stamps, student aid, public assistance, the right to serve on juries, and can be legally discriminated against by employers. That is the cultural legacy that is being invoked when 1 in 12 North Carolinians believe that being gay should be a felony. No one could possibly wish that on another human being unless they regarded the members of that group “with hatred or intolerance.” That is bigotry. And the fact that they arrived at that decision in a morally serious manner does not change the analysis.
I am sure that Ann and Glenn would respond by saying that they clearly do not support the felonization of homosexuality. Fine. But their reasoning about “moral serious” conclusions applies to those that do. Their logic forces them to respect people that want to do serious injury to their children. Which means that they either, a) have not given full consideration to the consequences of their thesis, or b) they are, by my own personal measure, derelict in their duty as parents. That’s an upsetting accusation, no doubt. But a parent’s first duty, I would think, is to not act in such a way that will do unnecessary harm to their children, nor to give cover to people who wish to do the same. Giving people a way to morally justify beliefs that will harm their children fits that bill a bit too cleanly.
If they also happen to be besties with the Beek, I’m down with that
The Archer Alignment Chart by Nick Douglas
Everyone on the FX show Archer tends toward chaotic neutral, so I mapped them out on two different axes: Niceness and competence.
I’m impressed with Nick’s solution for the problem that everyone on Archer is kind of a dick.
See also: More alignment charts on Slacktory
This just brings up so many great points (and important footnotes!). Please read!
Traditionally, the Democrats have sought to preserve civil liberties and reduce military adventurism. Running the country means that princpled stances sometimes run into other principled stances and compromises are made. Compromise means controversy. Civil libertarians have reason to be frustrated.1 So do those who categorically oppose military intervention.2 No politician is entitled to your support—and nobody should blame you for looking around.
Many of those looking for somebody with a more hardline stance on civil liberties and against military action found Ron Paul.3 Ron Paul, a Republican, has emphasized that he cares about “liberty,” by which he means a combination of protecting civil liberties and an extreme hands-off approach toward economics, even when that comes at the expense of a lot of people without a lot of money or influence. And if you joined Ron Paul for his civil liberties stances, maybe you’ll adopt—or at least tolerate—some of his economic stances as well.
So what happens when Paul loses the race and Romney gets the nomination? Romney’s stances on civil liberties and military action is far worse than Obama’s. He wants to “double Guantanamo” and stick with the Afghanistan war indefinitely. Apparently he’s against allowing same-sex couples to adopt now too. But, like Paul, he’s a Republican. And he’s going to make a hard sell that he’s going to protect the same kind of “economic liberties” that Paul did.[^4] And a lot of Paul supporters are going to come around—even though Romney is dramatically worse than Obama on the issues the primarily claim to care about.
[video]
Sometimes, facebook status updates lend themselves to perfect memoir titles. Look for it on shelves never!
