Saturday, May 13, 2017
My Exchange With The Brians From Volcano Vinyl
I listen to podcasts during my commute, and I love interacting with podcast hosts on Twitter. Some respond, some don't, and I guess it's the younger generation that are most interactive. Recently I checked out Volcano Vinyl, which has a cool premise: these two musicians with record collections listen to a whole album and discuss it in real time. We had the following exchange:
Here is the episode in which they address me, as I might have predicted, as a dude. (I have since updated my Twitter bio.) They were super nice about it, though, and just seemed genuinely glad that someone is listening and has ideas about it.
Below, I continue my response, which obviously cannot be contained by 140 characters.
Again, I'd like to thank you guys for being so nice about my snarky tweeting. Everything I have to say is all in good fun, and no offense is meant, but that doesn't mean my tweets always come across that way. Now, to clear up my slight disingenuousness: Your podcast was not the ONLY inspiration behind the #OffMyLawn tweet. I also had in mind the many many episodes of Gilmore Guys that I screamed at in my car on my way to/from work for the past year or two. So there's that.
I have a lot to say about all this, but I will try to limit my remarks to A) answering the questions you posed on vv074 & B) constructive criticism. Everything is a matter of taste, and podcastland is a wild west landscape where there are no rules, so I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with the way you're doing the show. I just want to share my reactions to the episodes I heard, and hope you find some of it useful.
I discovered VV through Player FM, which is the app I listen through. (I guess they suggested it to me because I recently fell in love with "The Life of a Song," which I highly recommend to EVERYONE.) The first episode of yours that I listened to was vv059: Get the Knack, and I was put off by your insistence that "My Sharona" is the only song anyone knows from it. I was about 10 years old when that album came out, and I remember singing along with "Good Girls Don't" on the radio (which is pretty disturbing when you think about it). I submit as further evidence that the immortal "Chipmunk Punk" album included not one, not two, but THREE Knack songs from their eponymous debut. So there!
Next, I decided to try vv019: Hot Buttered Soul by Isaac Hayes. I thought I would be more in my element there, because I'm not familiar with it: it came out the year after I was born, and there wasn't a ton of R&B in my house when I was growing up. (I've since tried to make up for that.) Thanks to Google Play Radio though, I had heard his version of "Walk on By." I believe it was that song that prompted my tweet: I couldn't believe you weren't aware of the Bacharach&David/Dionne Warwick songs of the 60s, "Walk on By" arguably being the most famous (others include Alfie, Do You Know the Way to San José, I Say a Little Prayer, The Look of Love, etc). I realize I'm being completely unreasonable here: you didn't grow up with 70s AM radio, and you can't be expected to know what you don't know. Even as I'm yelling at the sound system in my car, I'm laughing at my own ridiculous attitude. However, you kept remarking that the choices Hayes was making were "bold for a debut album," and then found out halfway through that it wasn't his first album. I just think if you had hit the wiki before you recorded the episode, your opinions would have been better informed, allowing you to dig in deeper with your observations. But then I kind of think, "Who cares? You found out, and we all got to listen in on the learning experience, and anyway, exactly how much do you need to know before you listen to an album, and..."And now my head hurts.
At this point, I'll list the other eps I've listened to, and try to wrap this up.
vv048: Desperado (do NOT get me started on the Eagles. They were my favorite band for the first 15 years of my life. I have no objectivity. But for the record, Glenn Frey was from Detroit. And they are NOT cheesier than Fleetwood Mac! Come at me!)
vv69: Chillin' by Force MDs (but you knew that)
vv001: Toto
vv002: Mirage
vv070: Yeezus (dunno if this counts b/c I got partway through & couldn't take any more)
vv007: Rio (I loved Sing Street, btw)
vv073: Boston (ended up yelling at you during this one because TWICE you both missed lyrics in the chorus that had been repeated 80x! I was like, "Am I the only one listening here?!" Then again, maybe that was Toto. It's all a blur now.)
vv074: Bad Luck Streak in Dancing School (hilarious that this was my episode because I own it on vinyl, or at least I used to. I gave most of my records away.)
I'm not a musician, so I appreciate the stuff you guys notice about the individual instruments & choices being made. Of all these eps, I most enjoyed the Fleetwood Mac & Boston, and I don't think it's coincidence that you guys knew something about their music beforehand.
So the bottom line is that, in my for-what-it's-worth opinion, your show is at its most enjoyable when your opinions are well-informed. Which probably means I should listen to episodes with later-era albums, but man, I hate post-80s music like poison! Did I mention I'm old?
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Money
Friday, April 13, 2012
Girl Date with Bern
Friday, April 6, 2012
Wherein I Am Forced to Drink the Kool-Aid Known as The Hunger Games
1. Hey honey, we make bread; let's name our son... Peeta! I hate stupid names. That's why I don't read fantasy. Also because I hate multi-book series. So this is 0 for 2 already.
2. Why is it officially called the "Hunger Games?" Isn't that bad for P.R.? Shouldn't they call it the "Happy Fun Time Games?"
3. Did they have stylists just so there could be a movie without people saying "Why does their makeup look so good while they're hunting each other?"
4. Do they literally have no drivers on the chariots? Doesn't seem possible. I'm seriously having a hard time picturing this.
5. I didn't get the "Rue" thing till she pointed it out. Had to cram some Ophelia shit in there, didn't ya?
6. Why does she agree to train with Peeta (89)? I find it strange. Only reasons I can think of (1) She wants to see how tough Peeta is (2) She wants to max her training time
7. Yeah no shit the Gamemakers scored her high. How stupid are we supposed to be?
8. Rue is clearly Black. I can't believe people had problems with the casting.
9. End of Part One. WHAT? Peeta's crush is... Katniss? I hate when these moments end chapters, like they're supposed to be big revelations, even though the reader has known them from page four.
10. I feel like I've been hating on it a lot, but there are features and moments that I find endearing. I like how in some ways she's a typical YA heroine, except she has to kill kids. It's pretty amusing.
11. Pretty cool how that kid blows up in her face right off the bat (150).
12. Was Peeta comparing Katniss to his harpy bitch of a mother when he said, "Give my mother my best?" I'm not blaming. Just curious.
13. They collect the dead during the game? In Battle Royale they wait till it's all over, which makes more sense to me.
14. Exactly what advantages do they get from sponsors? I feel like I'm missing something.
15. Peeta joining the Careers pack. I freely admit I did not see that coming.
16. There are cameras, but are there mikes? Why does no one ever fuck with them?
17. With the Gamemakers and sponsors, I feel the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what reality television is to reality. I may flesh this idea out in a Goodreads review. Or not.
18. Wow. Kinda shitty that she's letting her rivalry with Peeta overshadow helping her family (189).
19. God, when was the last time I tasted a honeysuckle?
20. I want Rue to turn out to be a psycho killer that destroys them all. Is that wrong? (200)
21. Why can't the Careers just get more supplies from their sponsors?
22. More Ophelia shit (237).
23. Rule change?! Why the fuck would they want to do that? And... aren't they the only pair left?
Okay, no, the pair from District 2 is alive, but the reason still doesn't make sense.
24. I hate this kind of stuff (261). When she won't let him finish "If I die..." It's bullshit. Even if you say "Don't talk like that," or whatever, you still let the guy finish that sentence, if only for your poor reader! And then how is she going to feel if he does die, and she can't even do whatever the fuck it was that he wanted her to do? Stupid.
25. Why do the Gamemakers send so much rain, when the result is no one killing each other?
26. Isn't this a kind of prostitution (302)? It's creeping me out.
27. All this kissing - how gross is their morning breath?
28. I like what she says about Foxface dying from Peeta's ignorance (324). It's kind of a mindfuck.
29. The mutts being the dead tributes struck me as incredibly stupid.
30. Would it really have fucked up the Capitol if they had gone out in double suicide? I have my doubts. If the point of the Hunger Games is to show their power by taking the children, why not just kill 'em all?
31. I really don't want there to be a Twilight-style rivalry between Peeta & Gale... and why do they both have such girly names?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Ides Eve
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Do I think Gatsby is a hero?
So the question really is: Do we agree with Nick?
I think I do. It’s really hard for me to argue with a narrator, no matter how hard I try.
Counter question: Did The Catcher in the Rye make oblique references to Gatsby? (Hint: the answer is yes. Because I think so, and I’m the teacher. Nyah.)
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Greatest Song Ever?
as high as i might
i can't get that high
the how you move
the way you burst the clouds
it makes me want to try
when i see you sticky as lips
as licky as trips
i can't lick that far
but when you pout
the way you shout out loud
it makes me want to start
and when i see you happy as a girl
that swims in a world of magic show
it makes me bite my fingers through
to think i could've let you go
and when i see you
take the same sweet steps
you used to take
i say i'll keep on holding you
my arms so tight
i'll never let you slip away
and when i see you kitten as a cat
yeah as smitten as that
i can't get that small
the way you fur
the how you purr
it makes me want to paw you all
and when i see you happy as a girl
that lives in a world of make-believe
it makes me pull my hair all out
to think i could've let you leave
and when i see you
take the same sweet steps
you used to take
i know i'll keep on holding you
in arms so tight
they'll never, never let you go
Monday, August 1, 2011
37-Mile Sunday
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Trolling...?
Since I got embroiled in the Elevatorgate nontroversy, I have seen many commentors referred to as “trolls.” In my experience with internet trolls, they have never been people with strong feelings about a cause who simply disagree with others that have strong feelings. The trolls I’ve come across have always just wanted to be dicks to piss people off, and get well-meaning bloggers to freak out and rage against them.
To make sure I wasn’t defining it incorrectly, I checked with urbandictionary.com. Their first definition is:
“One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument”
In other words, what I thought it was.
Now here’s the second definition:
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
This, I assume, is what people have been trying to say. But I think it’s important to note that this definition states the purpose as “usually... self-amusement,” and that there are three more definitions listed on the site, all of which are much closer to #1 than #2.
For the sake of clarity, I humbly suggest pointing out specific logical fallacies rather than just calling people “trolls” and accusing them of “trolling.” It’s easily misinterpreted by those of us who’ve had to deal with truly awful trolls.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Yet Another Elevatorgate Post from a Pissed-off Atheist
I fail to see how telling a woman you find her interesting and you'd like to have coffee with her is "sexualizing" her. Yes, even at 4am in an elevator when 10 minutes ago she said she was tired, dammit! I'm sure the internet will tell me what an anti-woman gender traitor I am.
From my point of view, I identify as feminist, by the old-fashioned definition of "the radical belief that women are human beings." There is nothing wrong with one human being propositioning another. The Elevator Guy can't know you're a paranoid until he winds up as fodder for your vlog. Maybe I shouldn't pass judgment on an incident I didn't witness, but I'm treating this as a hypothetical: What if you're at a conference in Dublin, it's 4 in the morning, a guy gets in the elevator with you and says this? Has he done something, ANYTHING, wrong? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Dawkins was right to compare it to chewing gum. He didn't trivialize it; it was trivial to start with. That's what Watson clearly doesn't “get.”
Many reactions I'm seeing online are dealing with the infighting aspect of this. There are all kinds of debates raging, but most skeptics are up for a good debate, right? Except those that aren't. When Dawkins wrote his (I'll admit it was snotty) response to PZ Meyers' sycophantic reaction to "Elevatorgate," Watson’s response to him was juvenile and irrational. "I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer." So those books that you were recommending for years are suddenly invalid because the author has justifiably called you out on your irrational fear of men? Note: Your reaction was not to invite Dawkins to a discussion, but to dismiss him as a "wealthy heterosexual white man." Because of those attributes, his opinion on the matter doesn't count? Well, I'm a woman. I've been importuned in a similar manner, in Dublin AND in London, at 2, if not 4, in the morning. And when I politely refused these polite offers, I was able to return to my room without incident. I didn't go online and tell men they should never do that to women. Because that would be ridiculous.
One thing coming out of all this, and I hope it continues, is that many atheists are questioning Watson’s place in the movement. I hope she has to justify her existence at these events and in this community, because a lot of careful readers out there have noted that she seems to bring very little to the table on the SGU podcast and in her blog.
I am not anti-woman. I am anti-Rebecca Watson. I am a woman, and I never gave Rebecca Watson permission to speak for me. When she says that, as someone who can't see the incident she described as objectification, I "don't get it," well, that really raises my hackles. I'm not stupider than you because I disagree. I know what it is to be objectified, and that's not it. You don't get to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it. You don't have that privilege. You don't get to rewrite the rules of social interaction to suit your paranoia. You don't have that privilege. Richard Dawkins never said "be a good girl and keep quiet." You made that up. Your paraphrase of his comments adds things that weren't there. I paraphrase what he said as "NOTHING BAD HAPPENED TO YOU IN THAT ELEVATOR." And I agree with him completely. I'm sorry whatever mental illness you're clearly suffering from tells you otherwise. Good luck getting help, but you won't, because it's all of us who "don't get it" that have to change, right?
- The Justicar, who is pretty hilarious (imho)
- Miranda Celeste, who I'm now following
- Stef McGraw, who RW treated unprofessionally (imho)
- ERV, awesome science nerd
- Amy Alkon, great title on this post
- and I'll include one more Team Rebecca post, The Blag Hag, who I have lost a lot of respect for in all this (note that I'm not urging a boycott of everything she's ever written. That would be childish.)
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Bloomsday 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Misquotes
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Biggest Ride Yet

- on Allen St., for a phone call (good news)
- directly under the Manhattan Bridge (Bklyn side) for another call (bad news that cancelled out the earlier good news)
- on Tillary St., to digest the bad news & give up on Bklyn
- Starbucks, Astor Place (snack break)
- Various & sundry terrifying spots in New Jersey, checking the Google Maps
- 4.73 to ferry
- 2.85 to EMS
- 2.43 to bklyn
- 3.15 to starbucks astor pl
- 12.55 up & over GWB
- 7.94 to Park Ave in Hoboken
- 2.88 lost in Hoboken
- 2.35 lost again
- 4.68 thru Jersey City
- 3.57 to Bayonne Br
- 2.12 to home
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Conquering Staten Island


Monday, April 4, 2011
Killer S.I. Ride
Sunday, March 20, 2011
"Reality"
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Another Saturday, Another Ride
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Lemonade, Anyone?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
I gotta weigh in on this Huck Finn fiasco
"Another point: Twain HATED slavery. A major point of the book (despite Twain's preface that anyone trying to find a moral in it would be shot) was that Jim, although an uneducated slave, is noble, even heroic. And Huck, even though he's been taught that blacks are inferior, that it is fitting and proper to hold them as slaves, recognizes Jim's nobility, his heroism, his essential humanity. He also recognizes that the proper white society that is trying to educate him at the beginning of the book, is dishonest and corrupt. And having learned those lessons, at the end of the book, he leaves civilization for "the Territory."
Expunging "the 'n' word" from "Huckleberry Finn" dilutes the power of the book. It's a pity Twain is not alive today (he died 100 years ago this year) to confront his critics, because he'd find just the right way to vivisect these idiots with his pen. They'd wish they'd never HEARD of "Huckleberry Finn," because the whole country would be convulsed with laughter as he subjected these stupendous asses to the ridicule they so richly deserve."
"The astonishing thing is that even when you turn it into a tale of Klingon oppression, it is IMMEDIATELY CLEAR to ANYONE who can read that Twain is ridiculing a deformed moral conscience that believes the government has the right to take away people's freedom, and further ridiculing the idea that a drunk belligerent white man is more qualified to vote than a black man.
I mean, my eleven-month-old son craps his pants at least twice a day, and even he has the critical reading capacity to understand what Huck Finn is about."
And on and on and on. Everything I want to say is being said, which I guess should make me hopeful. To those who apparently have said this new edition is good because it will allow teachers to expose students to a great novel, I say, "IT'S NOT THE NOVEL! THAT'S NOT HOW THE NOVEL IS WRITTEN!" (I should point out that words like "Injun" and "half-breed" have also been supposedly expunged from this edition). My hope is that the backlash will be so overwhelming that teachers will resurrect the original version and expose their students to THAT.
I hate to post a Mark Twain quote from the internet when I don't know the source offhand; I fear I may be spreading mis-information, since I know from direct experience that people have attributed quotations to Mark Twain that there's no way he ever said. But I believe he was capable of this one:
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.”
I'm out.



