FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(SoCalSouthSider59 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:28 PM) I can certainly think of 10 better albums to list, Bad Company's Bad Company and Deep Purple's Who Do We Think We Are! come to mind off the top of my head. Also, any early Sabbath, Cooper, Aerosmith, ect. ect.......... 1968's Pet Sounds? Most definitely YES! 1974's Quadrophenia? The best and most underated record The Who ever made, it makes my list. The 1980 Movie was pretty good too........ Let's not forget "Overnite Sensation" and "Roxy and Elsewhere", with some of the "Elsewhere" being the live concert at the Old Chicago Amphitheater on Mothers Day, 1974, May 11th, i believe. I was at that concert, all of 15 years old at the time. How many of you Chicagoland Zappa freaks remember that? I'm surprised that i still do, as stoned as i was at that concert! Ya, still a big time Zappa fan here.......... Sadly, I was only 7 at the time of the Zappa Amphitheater show. But, I did own my own copy pf Apostrophe by the time I was 11, so I was on the right track. I saw two Chicago Zappa shows in 1984 (these became the basis for the "Dropping Dildoes" bootleg), and I saw both of the Broadway the hard Way 1988 Chicago shows, including the show where Sting sang Murder By Numbers that is on the album. My damn friends were sitting next to Sting during the first set. I had gate crashed to get onto the main floor before he showed up and didn't meet him.

That is about the most brutal thing I have ever read.

I find your opening statements to be thoughtful and well-reasoned also. And in truth, I don't feel we are so very far apart on the issue. Particularly since you allow that there is flexibility in the way in which the 'general Welfare' of We, the People is to be interpreted. Adhering, for this discussion, to the basic definition of welfare as the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group, I concur with those you have alluded to that would include health care, public transportation and other public needs as welfare considerations in this country. But, these individuals, and seemingly yourself as well, have not seen fit to include education as one of the demands put on the federal government by the Constitution in its declaration that the general Welfare of the people be protected and promoted. My question to you, then, is do you see the fundamental right to education as being decreed and guaranteed by the federal constitution? If so, then where does this guarantee reside, if not part of the promotion of our general Welfare as alluded to in the Preamble? If not, is it then your position that there is no constitutional mandate that the federal government has a role in funding American public education? I envy you your ability to read bass clef, by the way, as it completely bewilders me. My formative musical years were spent playing trumpet and guitar, and in later years when I moved to baritone horn in concert band I realized I completely lacked the ability to sight read bass clef. My kids are doomed to years of piano lessons I'm sure, if only to ensure that they can read a grand staff.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) Wrong show. Also, never trust a woman without a navel.

We live in a world of increasing specialization in which electrical engineers don't know how to fix a broken toaster. Ours is a society saddled with public primary and secondary educational systems geared toward preparing students to pass standardized achievement tests but with little ability to introduce students to the arts in any meaningful way. The exception to this drab educational landscape is often the 'arts-in-the-classroom', museum outreach programs and other initiatives sponsored by the federally funded National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). For four decades, the NEA has divvied up it's annual shoestring budget to provide national, regional, and local grants to foster excellence in the arts and to ensure access to the arts and art education for all Americans, not just those in large cities. To NEA I say, "Bravo." Federal funding for the arts is an easy target of small-government advocates who feel tax dollars could be better spent by not subsidizing 'unemployed Bohemians' or showing paintings and playing symphonies to kids in school. One argument is that the great artists of the past found private patrons and today's artists should follow suit. Or if the art doesn't bring a return and pay for itself then it might not be worth producing. Such arguments are be made by those who do not grasp the true value of art in human society and are therefore symptomatic of the problem at hand. The truth is that annual NEA funding is alarmingly small. The 2006 request was for $121 million for programs and associated costs. While that amount is less than a rounding error in terms of the federal budget, it is enough to get the program's detractors up in arms over frivolous spending on unnecessary programs. Critics should be made to understand that in 2003 the annual nonprofit arts contribution to the national economy was estimated to be $37 billion. Not a bad return. But these artists have to come from somewhere. Without Endowment-funded programs to expose kids to the arts early in life, who can say what the toll would be, in terms of undiscovered and unrealized artistic potential? As to who should oversee disbursement of public funds to arts programs, I believe the NEA remains the best vehicle. There will always be some subjectivity in the selection process, but mechanisms are in place for considering public nominations for artists, institutions and programs worthy of funding. Controversial recipients such as Andres "Piss Christ" Serrano are part and parcel to the subjective nature of art, but on the whole the NEA track record of recognizing talent as well as funding need is impressive. For example, two-thirds (39 of the 58) of recipients of the National Book Award, National Book Critics Circle Awards, or Pulitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry were previous recipients of Arts Endowment Literature Fellowships. Moreover, Endowment funding sponsored the design competition for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and also provided crucial early funding for landmark institutions like the Sundance Film Festival and Chicago's famous Steppenwolf Theatre Company.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 09:44 PM) Jim, In this round, I am allowing each person to state their personal opinion. I am hoping with the question round some differences will emerge. I also picked a question that shouldn't be too hot. The second round will heat up. I'll debate Kap in an exhibition. Someone pick a topic/question. OK, got it. As for the exhibition round, Tex and Kap, here ya go: Dick York or Dick Sargent - who was the REAL Darrin Stephens?

Ach, you're all goofy. That was funny - kind of like Gilbert and Sullivan on acid. And now I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to get my family to promise they will inscribe "Well This Sucks" on my grave stone.

Happy Birthday Mr. Balta.

OK, waitasec, I'm missing something. Have we been told which side were supposed to take, pro or con, in this first question. I see the question thread but no indication of which direction I am supposed to argue.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) networks reject pilots all the time. just because there happened to be gays in it does not mean that it should have been on the air. this is typical, oversensitive liberal-style complaining. after that show will and grace, how many gay sitcoms do you think were pitched to every network? and they all got rejected, cause i never see them on. in conclusion, honestly, who cares? I'm not lamenting the loss of yet another crappy reality show, but this decision is more than rejecting a sit-com pilot episode. The whole season was in the can in this case as far as I understand, and it was the fact that in the end the gay couple won that may be at the heart of the controversy. Disney, despite being pretty gay friendly as far as extending employee benefits to domestic partners, has a history of caving to the religious right in situations like this. I'd not be surprised to learn that they did it again here.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 09:22 AM) I'd drop Clapton from the list to add Beach Boys. I would as well, but I would agree that the Delaneyand Bonny Clapton debut is his best solo effort. I'm more partial to the Blind Faith and Derrick and the Dominoes one-offs and the Cream catalog than I am to Erics solo body of work which is very uneven.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 01:59 AM) I think that Zappa is one of, if not the, most talented artist in rocks history, and would include Joe's Garage, We're Only in it for the Money, Hot Rats, Apostrophe, Shut up 'n Play Yer Guitar, many others and many of his live albums (Broadway the Hard Way, The Best Band You've Never Heard in Your Life, a few of the You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore series, etc.) on any top list I make. But as said, I'm bias, and some of his music is doesn't appeal to the masses, which is what the original list in question is about I believe. Always good to see another FZ fan. There are still a few of us lurking about. And if this was a 'favorite 10' list, my list would be chock full of Beatles, Frank, Todd Rundgren (maybe Something/Anything should be on the list anyway), Jethro Tull, Hendrix, Elvis Costello, etc. The You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore anthology, along with Playground Psychotics and Ahead of Their time, is about the best historical live audio rock documentation out there. When I listen to Stage Vol. 2 (Heksinki) and hear that group pulling off Inca Roads, Montanna, etc. at those breakneck speeds, I really appreciate the insanely great musicianship of that lineup.

You're right about the Beach Boys ommision. Pet Sounds should be there.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 12:59 AM) I might be the minority, but I'd take Tommy over Who's Next anyday. Tough call, but cut for cut I'd give Who's Next the nod as the one for this list. Then again, I tend to put Quadraphenia on more than either of them because Entwhistle's bass lines on that album still completely blow me away. The Rock Top 10 LP's is a hard, hard call. This coming from someone who owns 9 out of 10 of the albums listed in Tex' post ON VINYL (I don't have the Airplaine album, owning only Surrealistic Pillow and 'Worst of'). My top 10 (not necessarily my faves, though many of them are) would include: Axis: Bold as Love over Electric Ladyland in the hendrix category. I love Ladyland, but as a double-album I think it has moments on it that are not as through-and-through perfect as Axis. I'd take Zeppelin II over Zeppelin IV. Love IV of course, but Zeppelin II was the album that showed the debut album was no fluke and those guys were for real. It kills me to not give Revolver the nod, and in truth I think the Beatles deserve a couple of albums in the top 10. But, in considering the lost art of the LP I'd put Abbey Road Abbey Road in the top spot. And I'm a hardcore early Beatle fan too, but for them to have put Abbey Road out even while basically hating each other's guts is still an amazing thing. Personal bias here, but I'd include Rock's second double-album after Blonde on Blonde, Zappa and the MOI's 1966 Freak Out. Though the album suffers from its own low points here and there, it showed how much more Rock and Roll could be both musically and socially. I'll agree with Who's Next and Sticky Fingers. Maybe it's the single-malt I've been drinking this evening, but I might put the forst Police album up there. I think an Elvis and the Attractions album may need to get in there too, but I can't decide which. Maybe Songs from Big Pink by the Band. OK, those and maybe a hundred others or so should be in there.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 01:05 AM) because the show probably sucked? but that's the answer a "righty" is supposed to say... :rolly No, I'm sure the show sucked as well. But that is coming from a person who has never watched a single entire episode of ANY "reality show" ever, because they all suck by definition. At the same time, ABC has never been one to decide not to air something just because it sucked. If they did that there would be a lot of dead air on ABC.

But, but, but. . . Disney/ABC is the biggest media giant in the universe and it's a clearly proven fact that the media has been hijacked by the leftists, so how could this ever happen?!? :rolly

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 11:13 PM) Both sides are dead wrong on this and both sides have too much blood on their hands. Thank God things look a lot better today. Peace is the only way to solve this issue. Ach, Irish71, eventually we were bound to agree on something. My family are also historic Ulstermen (Cavan), and while I can spit and curse the "To Hell or Connaught" policies of Lord Protector Cromwell as fiercely as anyone, I'm appalled by and ashamed of the behavior of both the Papists and the Prods over the last 50 years.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 01:58 AM) Jesus only wants straight people rolling eggs to celebrate his death! That would be a Good Friday egg roll. I like shrimp in my egg rolls, btw.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) Except Dem hearings don't go on the Congressional record. That is true, but I meant they are on record as speaking their views - if only for the brave souls who listen to C-SPAN archives. I spent the day at work listening to it at any rate.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) but yet none of the dems in congress have the backbone to call him on it. That's not true though. The exploratory Democratic hearings that took place today are an important first step in making sure this debate takes place on the floor, and hopefully in the courts as well. They had a lot odf scholarly witnesses that opined that the administration's defense here is nearly non-existant in their estimate. And a good number of Dem congresspersons got on record as being vocally very concerned with the apparent abuse of Executive power. The BushCo pushback begins in earnest next week, with Bush visiting the NSA on Monday (hopefully there will be a big protester turnout), and Gonzales and former NSA director Michael Hayden are also doing interviews Monday and Tuesday.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) then we're agreed. i seem to have issues understanding your posts... it's been happening a lot lately. i guess i'm just a moron. Yeah, but you're our moron. I Kid Because I Care®

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? Just a guess, but I'd say it was because they didn't want the full report to go public.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) you've had 4 years, how long do you need? Well, first I'd say we need a President who takes them seriously. A refresher, for those who have forgotten that GWB pretty much had bin Laden off the radar in March of 2002. This was ONLY SIX MONTHS after 9-11, and in that time the president has become unconcerned about a person he swore he'd get "dead or alive" just a half-year earlier.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) -How much "stuff" should it take to make headlines when the President of the USA is being accused of Obstruction of Justice again? You tell me. GWB's 2002 firing of prosecutor Frederick Black during his investigaton of Jack Abramoff over scandals in Guam sure smacks of Obstruction, doesn't it? former Assistant US Attorney in DC and current Exec. Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) siggested Black's dismissal "looks political and should be investigated." But it's not even a blip on the MSM radar. The 2002 inquiry of Abramoff wrongdoing promptly ended with Black's successor, of course. Maybe that's why BushCo has never felt the need to repay the Abramoff firm (Greenberg) the more than $300K they owe them for services during the the 2000 recount fiasco. Oh, wait, I forgot. Bush never met Jack.

Again, the reports of his death, like Mr. Twain's, may have been greatly exaggerated. Qaeda chief releases new tape