slang

Nice succint analysis by Joe Scarbourouh, which is making my fear levels go down some. "Joe Biden puts country first and Republicans meltdown. What a tell." https://x.com/JoeNBC/status/1815107985900970059?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1815107985900970059|twgr^244ca64cea4574bd29d51558d6565a680bb0dc95|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fjoe-scarborough-joe-biden-campaign-news_n_669dfa2fe4b02fec30d2b0c4 Wishing Harris the best, against Dementia Don.

Well, it's Biden's opinion vs. everyone else (aka, his own party; the reps don't really count). If he wanted to quell qualms about his being healthy enough to perform in office, he'd have to offer them an easy out, if he were (in actuality) not well enough. And a committee (or maybe just a rotating committee member, with body-camera gear that attends stuff, and gives the data, and reports, to the others) is easier than Biden running the "iron-man" triathalon, winning it, and then saying "there, you see I'm healthy enough to be in office". The other thing is, I can't see how replacing Biden with Harris (if that's the dem's intention) changes anything about the likelihood of Trump winning, given Harris is on the ticket anyway, and the power succession rules are reasonably predictable/reliable. But perhaps Harris should actively campaign more (for Biden) and just say that. Also if the dems want somebody other than Harris, they need to get behind a name with a clear set of policies really fast. As it is, Biden (and by extension Harris) is the only one with policies that I can live with. Biden might be the only candidate (at least, they have announced) with (sane) policies, simpliciter.

I'll vote for whoever the democrats want, but if Harris is the one advocated as replacing Biden, they can have her 2028, and they can still have her earlier than that, if Biden decides to resign for health reasons during his 2nd term. If I were Biden, I'd promise to establish a 10-person shadowing committee of his presidential performance while he's in office. I don't know, maybe 7 democrats and 3 republicans on it, as the dems don't owe reps ANY impartiality for committee assignments. What they could do is write up a report citing specific reasons Biden should step down owing to his performance (e.g., 25th Amendment stuff). If they can get such a report with 7 signatories saying Biden should step down (and they'll always be able to get at least 3, I'm pretty sure), he should, and the report could remain classified, if Biden wanted that. Then they would get Harris, anyway. And if he didn't have to step down, given he has an effectual senate/congress, he can still do a good job. BTW, I still feel confident about Biden's policy objectives vis a vis Trump's. I think his first term compares VERY favorably to Trump's, and I even feel confident about Biden's campaigning abilities vis a vis Trump's, although that last, is just my opinion, based on substance of the campaigning content. If the dems don't want Harris as the top of the ticket, using Biden/Harris campaign funds becomes problematic (or maybe not, not sure). It is also the case, that the democrat they choose might not be as popular as Biden (contra Trump), so I would really want to know their reasoning for their choice with regard to popularity. I'd also want to know (if I were indecisive voter, which I'm not), how the replacement's policy objectives differed from Biden (if they did).

Old and Feeble vs. Old & Crazy and Dangerous still presents you with a choice. So hypothetically if you think 45% probability "shit hits the fan" with Biden, but 75% probability SHTF with Trump, you should rationally vote Biden. I certainly am, and while I agree that the candidates could be MUCH better, that is the choice that I have to act on. I suppose if I were virtually indifferent to which candidate could win (i.e., hate both equally and strongly) I would vote independent, because at least I'd be sending a message to that independent that I want them to run later. But is Biden REALLY old and feeble, and/or do we really expect his performance as president to be REALLY highly correlated to his debate performance? I'm more optimistic about a low correlation, actually. We've had a presidential term with each of these guys. What has Trump done and what has Biden done? What has Trump said he's going to do in another term, and what has Biden said. That is the only important debate, actually, although I'm saddened Biden couldn't do better at the televised debate (which has had the effect of making the election more of a nail-biter). Finally, in addition to too many reasons to list, I'm also voting Biden, because Putin endorses Biden. Think about it.

Well that would be distressing if you're using Chrome. My post pertains to the fact that even with things (e.g., liking) working most times and places, there's still "pockets", where things don't work, but they were small pockets (and transient?). The tell for this (on windows 10 PC) is in the URL field of the browser: instead of "not secure" warning (black-font, "!" in a triangle), where things works; it's a "not secure" warning in red font (white x on red background pre-posed), where liking won't work. The thing that causes me problems (I think) is using a word-processing app that allows me to launch the browser at a URL (e.g. a lanaboards post) in some of its text documents.

So I was in "unpopular lana opinions" and tried to like a post. It didn't work (usual error message). The thread annotates the url in the browser field "[white x on red background] not secure" in red font. On this thread it's got the usual black font [! in triangle] not secure" for the url text field, and I COULD like Elle's post, the one I quoted. So I'm wondering if this can like/can't like thing is thread dependent. Or maybe the particular pop up add that occurs does something the browser can't stomach. I'm using Chrome and followed the advice of the past fix, which worked fine for a good while. update edit: Yeah, this is some weird shit. Not only was it thread-dependent, but page within-thread dependent. It seems dependent on how I access the link. There seems to be enough work arounds (for me) that this is a non-issue, given I've applied the recommended fix.

Yeah, that was a good article. As the "Gansta Nancy Sinatra" meme was taking off, I can imagine a parallel universe where she just decided to release "Scarface" in response to it, which according to the Lana Del Rey Wiki, was recorded Feb 2010 (so she might have been able to do that, if Al Pacino and others had approved the sample used). Everybody might have taken the GNS meme as advanced promo for the song. There might have been some incredible backlash sure, but the meme would probably have died (and/or Nancy would have disavowed the comparison at that time). Comparing Nancy's singing to Frank's in that article was a bit cruel (if arguably true). She might have regretted that, causing her to cover Summer Wine later, idk. Also Nancy did perform a Bond song for You Only Live Twice. That song has melodic elements in common with the beginning Terrence Loves You, imo. Well that's enough rando reactions, I guess.

This link to the Ivors should be useful for figuring out what they are: https://ivorsacademy.com/awards/the-ivors/archive/ What I remember of the Ivors: LDR won one already, for best contemporary song, Video Games. At about the time I was thinking about that earlier LDR win, I learned that Martin Gore had won one for "International Achievement" (1999), which is not the same award as LDR's current one. I used the archive to see that a "Special International Award" (I guess it means something like international music influencer), was given to Hal David (Burt Bacharach's lyricist, among others), the year of Martin's award. Their website is useful for finding out stuff like that. Good to see LDR get the recognition, and hope she shows up again (e.g., in either Martin's, or K. T. Tunstall's capacity).

This is like an "instagram" only it's on youtube. Wondering if this little piece of WTFery is legit (i.e., it's LDR's doing). "Die for you" (full quote "Has anyone else died for you?") is a bit of an LDRism, but the cross displayed here -- with the SNL date -- is actually very, very heretical(?), blasphemous (?), and sardonic (bingo!). I'm pretty sure Judah wouldn't approve, but if he did, he's way "cooler" than we give him credit for. Or maybe she's just trying to promo Christianity a bit, idk. However, my favorite/preferred theory is that somebody's is just spoofing her.

Not a huge fan of the Denver cover either, which seemed like a reverential payback for name-dropping his (other?) song on the Grants (why didn't she cover that one?). What's weird about the whole thing, is that I don't recall LDR releasing stuff later than the cover, so what CL says can't be about LDR's art, can it? A larger comment about covering John Denver may be that's she's pissed off she didn't cover a female classic. I mean, later in the article: "However, Love does shower praise on artists such as Patti Smith, Nina Simone, PJ Harvey, Julie London, Joni Mitchell, and Debbie Harry. Without a hint of self-awareness, she also said her show was meant to “redeem some of the women who have been treated so badly by the record industry,” adding, “Women are still marginalized in this industry, even though they’re more successful.” Anyway, the interviewer should have asked for elaboration. CL's view of Taylor just seems to be CL in Kim Gordon "provocateur" mode. Also maybe she's a little jealous of the fact Taylor stans Lana?

It was a mixed bag, and I'm still processing/rationalizing it. I couldn't see the live cause it's way, WAY past my bedtime, but I was grateful to see it on youtube, in a priveleged seat relative to the average audience viewer. Her singing's nice (when she's not fading) and she's killing the Jessica Rabbit look, imo. The sound guy obviously had problems keeping up with her vocal dynamics and couldn't handle when she's soft and then increases volume. LDR's singing style is definitely of a past generation, but even that generation didn't sing that way (e.g., Ella and Billy -- the other Billy -- had much more power). Her energy levels also seemed intentionally markedly depressed at times, as if it were way, WAY past her bedtime too. However, I can spin/rationalize that as a new kind of somno-style (to go with narco-swing and others), so that she and her songs, are meant to be perceived in a hypnogogic dream state, with the subdued lighting (and images) helping that. That Baptiste showed up was understandable for this concert, and I liked their interluding better than the album's. However, when Billy Eilish came on, it was like "holy shit, I really must be dreaming this stuff", and I liked that part very much ("get out of my fucking face", lol). I'm just guessing (any opinions?)... Antonoff did essentially a "live solo" with a hologram of LDR, singing what I imagine to be the original vocal stems (?); at any rate her singing seemed different from the rest of the concert. The hologram technique is usually done with dead artists (e.g., Tupac), so LDR's appearance, as such, was unsettling. Her morbidity game is certainly on point with that, even if it's the ghost of a past performance. Liked the Young and Beautiful outro and its horns. In sum, maybe her ambition exceeded her execution a bit, but ambition is still the most important thing for me. It will be interesting to see what her second performance will be (as in identical or with switch ups, or maybe she might do the same stuff a bit more amphetiminically, without the drugs, of course), though I doubt they'll stream that too.

From Wikipedia on Dirty Mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Mind#:~:text=Dirty Mind has,1980s.[8] So the track Sister didn't hurt him too much, or maybe DM would have placed much higher on all those epic album lists, if he hadn't included it, idk. He actually does have a sister, who is two years younger than him, if he were living. So "Sister" can be thought of as fiction, much like Nabokov's Lolita is. Or possibly it reflects personal knowledge of somebody elses situation. I love how Prince just HAD to use the word "incest" in the lyrics, so the listener knows, he's not using the slang-metaphor "sister" colloquialism of the times. Also, depending on how one interprets the lyrics following what you posted, it could reflect even worse on the sister (lol, was she her brother's pimp too?!). Music lost a (courageous and outrageous) hero, when it lost Prince; I really miss him.

I mean she's sex positive and so is her art. So if you're a certain persuasion of conservative reductionist you might see her as a "coquette". I see her more as a brainy intellectual with a Phd in Marilyn Monroe.

I'm guessing you like classical (as do I). Which sort of brings up the question, why no "classical" or "jazz" threads at LBs? Or maybe "What are you listening to?" could be broken down by genre. While it's true I could start a thread like this, centuries of being trampled underfoot has made me more of a follower than a leader. BTW, 50th anniversary is relative to 2009, and google reports 4 different people worked on the film score. Not sure, but I would say the score is influenced by Tchaikovsky's ballet score for The Sleeping Beauty. The question that comes to mind: are we talking college or commercial radio? College radio was an amazing source of music exploration back in the day before the Internet.

trying to discover prog after the 70s