Monthly Archive for September, 2007

Under Appreciated

Overall, I would have to say that 1997’s Pop is probably the most underrated album U2 ever released. A lot of people have simply dismissed it as the band’s low point of the band’s nineties musical experimentation (remember when Bono declared at the end of ‘89 that U2 would be a different band in the 90s), and herald 2000’s All That You Can’t Leave Behind as a godsend because of its more stripped down and raw rock and roll feel. The electronic feel of this album isn’t even as bad as some of the places they went on Achtung Baby or the whole Zooropa album. It’s too bad that so many people just gloss it over, because it’s actually a decent album with good songwriting, decent musical structure, and some honestly touching ballads and haunting down-tempo songs. It’s one of those albums that you have to listen to several times to really appreciate.

Of course, the Popmart tour in support of the album probably didn’t help perception of the album at all. I don’t think people in 1997 were ready for a giant oversized lemon that the band would come out of, or for those weird muscle body shirts that Bono was favoring in those days. Live and learn ten years later, I suppose.

I’d still take the sound and style of the Vertigo Tour over Popmart any day, though. I guess no one will ever appreciate this period of the band’s history by any stretch. Such is life.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , ,

The Smacketh Was Layeth Down

It’s not secret that most Republicans do little more than stick to the talking points when they go on the talking heads shows. Why not? The talking heads love to toss them softballs and they’ll usually hit them out of the park. Every now and again, though, you find that someone will flip the script. Take this exchange that happened between Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and talking head David Shuster, filling in for Tucker Carlson on MSNBC. In the midst of this woman ranting on and on (and on and on) about the Moveon.org ad in the New York Times, Shuster throws out the playbook and blindsides her (care of Crooks and Liars, which also has a video clip of this exchange):

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn: “The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh – from my district I – I do not know his name -”

Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I – I, you know, I – I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and MoveOn.org…. But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

It’s an honest shame that we don’t see more journalistic integrity like this, because that’s exactly what it is. For once, instead of just letting them fly with bullshit softball questions and letting them reiterate talking points, a talking head actually stood up and called this woman on her bullshit. And here I thought the only ones who did this were Keith Olbermann, John Stewart, and Bill Mahr. Too bad that was probably a once in a lifetime thing, but it’s good to see when you can.

EDIT: Apparently, the kid was not from this woman’s district, but from a town one district over. Shuster apologized for the mistake in a subsequent show (as stated at C&L). It still proves his point nonetheless.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

References A Go-Go

This is one of those examples of people with way too much time on their hands, but is still ridiculously cool nonetheless.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Technorati Tags: , ,

(1)

More Rotten Apple

It would seem that the once unbreakable Reality Distortion Field keeps getting more and more cracks in it. The latest? It would seem that with the latest iterations of the iPod, Apple has changed the iTunesDB (the database file that tells your iPod what’s on it) format so that the iPod can only be updated by iTunes. This basically locks out the ability for anyone using Linux or using alternate software on Windows (such as Winamp, which has had the ability to update an iPod for a while now).

This isn’t a surprising turn of events (Jobs is a ruthless capitalist at heart, don’t you know). Things like the DCMA give companies like Apple huge leeway to encourage anti-competitive business practices. Apple also cleans up nicely from purchases in the iTunes Store. Their vertically integrated selling model has been Apple’s bread and butter since 2002. The real surprising thing is that more and more people aren’t being wooed by the mighty Jobs anymore and seeing everything that the heads in Cupertino do as infallible. By keeping this up, Apple may one day be viewed with the same level disdain as that guy in Redmond.

But, then again, who am I kidding? Steve Jobs can do no wrong, right?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Una Cosa Más

I didn’t really do much looking into the details of the $100 Apple was giving back to iPhone early adopters back when I tacked the note onto my post about the iPhone, but I did want to chime in on this a bit.

First of all, you have to give Steve Jobs credit for turning around on this whole thing so quickly. In his USA Today interview, Jobs took a pretty unapologetic stance on the iPhone price cut, but did turn around and act contrite about it fairly quickly. That includes an open letter to the iPhone early adopter community posted on the Apple website. That’s great, and as expected, a good deal of the Apple community is now mollified that Jobs is the grand and benevolent master of all things technology, but let’s look at this objectively.

Sure, Jobs is giving back early adopters $100, but there’s two things to remember in it. First of all, it’s not even enough to bridge the gap to cover what people who waited a couple of months are now paying for the phone. That’s to be expected, I suppose, given things, and something is better than nothing. Still, people who bought the iPhone in the past like two weeks can still get price matched on it and get their $200 back.

The second, and far more important, thing is that the $100 Jobs is handing out? It’s coming in the form of store credit. Wow, that’s being generous, Steve! Way to go there! So basically, Jobs is taking the obvious dissatisfaction of his early adopters and working to turn it around into more Apple sales. This is thinking different? If I was one of those idiots that waited on line for hours for an iPhone (and, that’s what I think of those people, honestly), I think I’d feel more stabbed in the back that the company was trying to make even more sales off of mollifying me. Luckily for Jobs and Apple of course, this gesture restored the reality distortion field to 100% operating efficiency, so there’s nothing to worry about, and that might be the saddest fact of all.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , ,