Okay, I have all the original Zeppelin albums on vinyl, from Led Zeppelin I to Coda. Led Zeppelin I and II were bought a day or two after Christmas in 1969; Zeppelin III was a Christmas present in 1970; and Zeppelin IV a Christmas present in 1971. All the rest of my Zeppelin records I bought either on the day of release or no more than a day or two later. Additionally, I bought all the Classic records vinyl remasters on 180gram vinyl that were issued a few years back. I have the Complete Studio Recordings box set that came out in the mid-90's. I have several of the Japanese mini-vinyl replicas also: III; Houses of the Holy; Physical Graffiti; and Song Remains the Same. I have the special box set of the TSRTS dvd and cd that came out last year. I have the special edition of the BBC sessions; How the West Was Won; and the Led Zeppelin DVD from 2003. In short, from the time I first became a fan of Led Zeppelin in 1969, I have bought just about EVERY official release in their entire history...some several times over. Hell, I even think I still have some old Zeppelin cassettes lying around somewhere. So, tell me, is there ANY reason why I need to get this new box set of the Vinyl replica cds? Is there really a sonic upgrade from earlier remasters? I've got all the original album covers and sleeves..what do I need with mini replicas? Here's your chance, fanboys, to convince me that I should put this on my Christmas list.

Will the NFL PLEASE stop forcing the awful Detroit Lions down our throats every Thanksgiving! One turkey is enough on this day. Yeah, I get it, it's tradition and the Lions used to be good and blah blah blah...but really, enough is enough. 47-10 ass-whuppin's ain't good for one's appetite. Let the Cowboys have their annual Thanksgiving game, as they are usually in playoff contention, but it is time to rotate the morning game amongst other teams. Detroit has been so bad, so dreary, so lame for so long now, that they should have their Thanksgiving privilages revoked. Oh, and one other thing, NFL...the Jonas brothers?!? Are you effing kidding me...the effing JonASS brothers?!?

Yes, Taylore, it was recently...they played the House of Blues Nov. 14...I went to see the awesome Deerhoof at the Echoplex instead. To confuse matters further, there is ANOTHER band called the Hanson Brothers, named after the hilarious hockey-playing goons from the movie "Slap Shot"...here's a brief blurb from the LA Weekly about their upcoming show at the Echo next week: The Hanson Brothers -- the Canadian punk rock band -- were inspired by the fictional Hanson Brothers, who were characters in the 1977 hockey film Slap Shot. To confuse things further, the movie Hansons were portrayed, in part, by real-life pro-hockey-playing brothers, while the "puck rock" Hansons feature siblings John and Rob Wright, who also front the monstrously heavy prog-punk trio No Means No. (None of this sibling revelry should be confused with the godawful lite-pop swill of former teen-idol brethren Hanson.) So, it's kind of a parody of a parody of a sport that sometimes seems like a parody, if that makes sense. All you really need to know is that the Hanson Brothers -- the band -- crank out short, fast and brutally silly songs about hockey ("Rink Rat," "He Looked a Lot Like Tiger Williams," "Stick Boy") and beer ("Blitzkrieg Hops," "We're Brewing"). The Ramones remain a major influence on their sound and style (the artwork to the Hansons' 1992 album, Gross Misconduct, even parodies the classic John Holmstrom illustration on the Ramones' Road to Ruin cover). They've apparently got a new concert CD/DVD, It's a Living (on Wrong Records), but nothing beats getting beaten over the head in person by the Hanson Brothers' nonstop, high-sticking attack. It's certainly better than watching the unintentionally funny penalty-killing high jinks of this season's Anaheim Ducks.

Well, I don't know what biography you read, but from the conversations I've had with the band, it was really only Eric who had a distaste for classic rock like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, and Grateful Dead...Jane's covered all three bands back in the day...as he was mostly into punk at the time. But Perry and Dave have often stated a fondness for Zeppelin; Dave even said his two main influences on guitar were Jimmy Page and Robert Smith of the Cure.

Thought I would post some choice clips from the El Cid show for your delight... This was the very first song they did and one of my favourites of Jane's: Whores! Some more clips from the El Cid show 11.20.08: There's a box set coming out next April, which leads one to think that Jane's may be on the Coachella bill next year, since the end of April is when Coachella usually happens. I can't tell you how huge and influential Jane's Addiction was in Los Angeles when they sprung from Perry Farrell's earlier band Psi Com in the mid-80's. As part of the real underground rock/art scene, their shows were must-see for those in the know; intoxicating, surreal, mind-altering affairs. Let the tourists and the jocks have their stupid hair-metal scene, which was what the Sunset Strip club scene was all about in those days. The real musical action was taking place at clubs in the east Hollywood/downtown LA areas...clubs like Power Tools, the Scream, Al's Bar, Anti-Club, Lhasa Club, Club Lingerie and the legendary Raji's. Bands like Dream Syndicate, Concrete Blond, 45 Grave, Mary's Danish, Fishbone, Thelonious Monster, Red Hot Chili Peppers, would play and play in these sweaty little clubs and build up their live chops. But Jane's was the band head and shoulders above the rest...everyone knew it, even the other bands themselves. In fact, after Led Zeppelin's demise after Bonzo's death in 1980, it wasn't until I saw Jane's for the first time in 1986, where I thought here was a band that came even close to the strange musical alchemy that Zeppelin achieved; that weird mix of hard/soft, light and shade, masculine/feminine...music that made you feel like you were on drugs eevn when you weren't. Music of its time yet timeless as well. And sexy as hell, too! I got laid after Jane's shows more than any other band's concerts...just as Led Zep concerts always drew more women than other hard rock bands of their day, Jane's Addiction had the best looking and most smart and interesting girls/women at their shows. Most of the girls at the Guns n Roses, Motley Crue, etc. shows were of the wanna-be stripper/porn star variety; all silicone and teased blonde hair. At Jane's, you had artists, writers, creative types who also were hot in an authentic way that was far more sexy than the bimbos at the hair-metal shows could ever hope to be. And Wolfman is right...a Jane's Addiction concert was explosive...it would leave you transformed. And you never knew what Perry was going to do or say...even more so than vintage David Lee Roth-era Van Halen, whose raps, truth be told, were more scripted than people realize. Anyway, I had no idea there was so many old clips of vintage Jane's on youtube...here are some classic clips, back before Dave got his tattoos: "Three Days" Milan, Italy 1990 "Ocean Size" Milan, Italy 1990 "Summertime Rolls" Milan, Italy 1990 "LA Medley:LA Woman/Lexicon Devil/Nausea" Hollywood Palladium 1990 "Jane Says" Milan, Italy 1990 And, just because it's so intense, especially the audience, another clip of Whores: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBwgyXxScoM&feature=related

i couldn't believe it when my friend sandra tried to get me to go to the hanson show with her...even said she'd buy my ticket for me...but there was another show i wanted to see so i passed...but she always tells me they are not the teeny-boppers they used to be...so maybe one day i will check 'em out.

Yeah, this sounds amazing...and it's about a tribute was done for Sandy.

Forget those reunions with Flea and Chris Chaney, etc. There is only ONE Jane's Addiction that matters...and that is the original line-up of Perry Farrell, Dave Navarro, Stephen Perkins and Eric Avery. But for years, it seemed as if Eric would never make peace with Perry and a true Jane's Addiction reunion would never occur. Then, the stunning announcement earlier this year that Eric would join the band for a gig at the NME Award show, in April, at the El Rey Theatre in Los Angeles. One show, and a fairly average one at that(Perry was not in good voice and Dave seemed off, too)...plus the fact that it was an award show with the usual complement of idiots in the crowd(Perez Hilton? Who invited that troll?) left me underwhelmed. And I put Jane's out of mind again. Until I heard the glowing reports from friends who had seen the "secret show" the original Jane's played at the La Cita bar October 23. I had another concert to go to that night, so missed the Jane's show...but everyone said it was way better than the NME gig back in April. So when the news leaked earlier this week about Jane's playing the El Cid restaurant November 20...and that tix would be available at the door for $9, I was dead certain that no matter what, I was going to take the day off and get there early enough to have a chance to get in. El Cid is on Sunset Blvd. in the Silver Lake area...it's a great old Mexican restaurant, with steps leading down from Sunset to the restauarant and patio on the slope below the boulevard. There's a stage inside for mariachi shows and they also host rock shows occasionally...my brother's band has played there...all told it holds around 150-200 people. My first surprise when I got there was that only a few people were in line; somewhere around 20-30. Anyway, I added my name to the list they were keeping to maintain some sort of order. According to the reports, the band was going on at 11pm...which meant we probably had quite a wait in store for us; luckily it wasn't as hot as it had been earlier in the week. We got to hear sound-check and see the band leave as gradually more and more people joined the line until it started to number in the hundreds. At last around 9:30-10pm, we started getting in...I don't know how many people behind me made it, but I think around 75 to 100 people that were in line got in; plus the usual guest list of family and friends. And when the band hit the stage, it was almost like old times at the Scream once again: Eric Avery really is the glue that holds this band together. Not that flea isn't a good bass player, but he's not right for Jane's Addiction. Like Led Zeppelin, the magic of Jane's Addiction was the chemistry and combustion between the original four members. And while last night's show had some technical glitches, the main thing was that the INTENSITY, the POWER and the MYSTIQUE that was Jane's Addiction in the 80's was back! Here is the set list from last night's show: Whores Trip Away Standing in the Shower... Thinking Mountain Song Ain't No Right No One's Leaving Then She Did... 1% Stop! Had a Dad Ocean Size Chip Away Word is more small shows to come, with a possible tour to follow; Hollywood Palladium is supposedly talking with Jane's about a possible show before the year is out. HELL YEAH!

But then, how do you spoof someone that already seems to be a parody of themselves. I mean, where were Sarah Palin's handlers...they had to know how oblivious this makes her seem to most people? A word of warning...some of you, especially you vegetarians, may find this clip nauseating. Sarah Palin...the gift that keeps on giving! I just love the guy slaughtering the turkeys who keeps looking back towards the camera with that weird smile on his face. Every comic/late-night tv show must be thanking their lucky stars for the gift that is Sarah Palin; she's comic gold!

Yeah, about as extensive as my links to Jimmy Page. Relax, it's not like Ayers is going to be part of Obama's Cabinet. You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Oh, and I seem to recall plenty of Republicans working with Ayers over the years.

It is not $30 here in the US...more like $15, which is how much Borders and Barnes & Nobles and various newstands have priced it. Besides the various factual errors and typos, the US copy does not have the DVD that comes with the magazine in the UK.

Another great one bites the dust. Curious as to what the autopsy report shows...heart attack? 61, 62 is still pretty young. I was too young to see Jimi Hendrix, and only just got to see Mitch Mitchell live for the first time the Sunday before the election, Nov. 2, as part of that Hendrix Experience Tribute concert. Boy am I glad I did. He was an influential drummer, like Keith Moon, in that wild kinetic style.

Wow Rover, another hack writer...just like the article you posted from Ralph Novak. Is there anyone you read who isn't an insane wingnut? Whine whine whine...can we at least wait until Obama takes office BEFORE predicting the fall of the United States? Talk about sore losers..it used to be that newly elected Presidents were accorded a honeymoon period(yes, even "W" got one). But the inauguration hasn't even happened and already you read and hear these delusional fears from people that Obama is gonna turn the country over to Marxists or that he's gonna take away everybody's guns. Gun sales went up after Obama's election...one guy was quoted as saying he was stocking up on guns because he thought Obama was going to make guns illegal because of what he said about people "clinging to guns and religion"; ironically PROVING Obama's point! Hey, knuckleheads, I got news for ya: Obama ain't gonna take away your guns and he doesn't want to. And even if one day a President was elected that did want to take away your guns, it couldn't happen in a million years, as the Second Ammendment is set in stone and between the Senate and Congress, there is no way in hell you could get enough votes to ban guns for law-abiding citizens. So get over your irrational fear already. But by far the worse comments I've seen have been the people calling for Obama's impeachment and, even scarier, his assasination on message boards all over the internet. A large number of these comments originate from people in the South for some reason. There is something wrong, when there is a sizable segment of this country that has bought the lies and propaganda put forth by the rabid right, and refuses to even give Obama a fair chance to prove himself before shouting for his impeachment and death. This is how Obama's re-election will be ensured in 2012...the far-right nuts scaring the moderates and independents and forcing them to vote again for Obama and the Democrats. Which is why I say if the GOP wants to run the Alaskan Airhead, Sarah Palin, in 2012, I say bring her on...it will be an even bigger wipeout than this year.

Okay, here's the deal...after recently seeing Stereolab in concert, I decided to dig up all my old Stereolab albums(must be about 20) and relisten to them in chronological order. While perusing the liner notes to "Margerine Eclipse", I read this bit of info: "RECORDED IN DUAL-MONO." I think I might know what that means, but I want to be sure, so if any of you sound recording geeks out there know, please give me the details. Why dual-mono and not stereo? What, if any, is the advantage? Why if it's mono, does it still sound like stereo when I listen to the record, with different sounds coming from left and right speakers? Do you have to set up the mics different in the studio to record as opposed to recording in stereo? Thanks, in advance, for any answers.

I'm a Vet...and I never knew my grandfather, as he was killed in WWII. So yes, like Drunk08, I never forget.

There was an excellent book that came out earlier this year about the Vietnam War and the Kennedy administration's role...it's called "America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War" and it is by David Milne. I highly recommend reding it and you should be able to find cheap copies on Amazon or your local used book store. On a related note, David Milne also wrote an excellent op-ed piece the other day about the reliance of U.S. Presidents on foreign policy academics and intellectuals; more so than other country's leaders do. Here it is as follows; it is good food for thought especially as Obama now puts together his Cabinet. Obama's foreign policy picks Academics from top-notch universities likely lead the list of potential advisors. By David Milne November 7, 2008 Presidential campaigns are generally discouraging for foreign policy intellectuals. Not only do the candidates pander in folksy vernacular to hockey moms and Joe Six Packs, but the clever ones favored by university professors often fare badly on election day. The cerebral Adlai Stevenson, for instance, was trounced by former Gen. Dwight Eisenhower -- twice. When an avid Stevenson supporter gushed that the Illinois governor was certain to "get the vote of every thinking man in the U.S.," Stevenson replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win." The anti-intellectual strain among American voters has not gone away in the years since then. Consider how Al Gore's professorial debating style turned off voters in 2000 and John Kerry's fluency in French aided George Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. But when the race is over, the populism of the campaign gives way to something quite different. As soon as the transition begins, presidents-elect invariably turn to academics for foreign policy inspiration. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned to McGeorge Bundy of Harvard and Walt Rostow of MIT for their insights on international relations. Richard Nixon landed arch-realist Henry Kissinger from Harvard and accorded him unprecedented responsibilities as national security advisor. Jimmy Carter brought in Zbigniew Brzezinski from Columbia to serve as his national security advisor. George W. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice from Stanford and Paul Wolfowitz from Johns Hopkins, and both have made their marks on world affairs. Hiring hotshot academics from the nation's top universities is a peculiarly American practice. In no other nation on Earth do elected leaders take political scientists so seriously. For better or worse, British prime ministers are unlikely to look to Oxford or Cambridge for diplomatic inspiration. The French talk an intellectual game, but the Grandes Ecoles produce bureaucrats, not grand strategists. So which academics are likely to be hovering close to their cellphones during the next few weeks? Although she resigned from the Obama campaign in March 2008 for describing Hillary Rodham Clinton as "a monster," Harvard's Samantha Power looks a good bet for a high-level position. Power made her name with the Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Problem from Hell," a powerful indictment of the West's inability to prevent genocide through the 20th century. A self-described "humanitarian hawk," Power believes that U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a moral impulse, beginning with a strong response to ongoing ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Princeton professor G. John Ikenberry is another potential appointee. Ikenberry describes his big idea as "liberal order building." He believes that America must retain its position of "liberal hegemony" through adherence to a "loose rule-based international order." In a nutshell, Ikenberry's message is that Washington must revert to the farsighted diplomacy of alliance- and institution-building practiced by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. There are many other academics who have advised the Obama campaign and might also figure in his administration. These include Sarah Sewell, a human rights specialist from Harvard who collaborated with Gen. David H. Petraeus in rewriting the Army and Marine counterinsurgency field guide; Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as President Clinton's assistant secretary of State for African affairs; and Anthony Lake, a Georgetown professor who served as Clinton's national security advisor. All three have sound academic credentials and substantial experience. The good news is that Barack Obama's intellectuals are fine scholars who have produced some thought-provoking books and articles on the best way to deploy American power. The bad news is that Walt Rostow and Paul Wolfowitz were also fine scholars who had produced interesting books and articles on the best way to deploy American power. So how might this new generation of foreign policy thinkers avoid the mistakes made by their predecessors? Well, one problem has arisen in cases in which the academic in question has a cherished "theory" to test, and therefore misreads evidence to suit intellectual preconceptions. Through the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, for instance, Rostow believed that the thesis presented in his 1960 book, "The Stages of Economic Growth" -- that all nations are driven by economic self-interest in peace and war -- rendered North Vietnam's infrastructure critically vulnerable to American bombing. "Ho Chi Minh has an industrial complex to protect," he explained. "He is no longer a guerrilla fighter with nothing to lose." But Rostow was wrong. North Vietnam's leadership was willing to absorb serious damage to further the overarching goal of reunification. Rostow failed to appreciate the power of nationalist ideology. Similarly, Wolfowitz theorized throughout the 1990s that liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein would lead to the eventual democratization of the Middle East, a region better known for its authoritarian regimes than for participatory politics. It is perhaps too early to declare that the thesis was entirely wrong. But the last five years have not been encouraging. Power's and Ikenberry's ideas are thankfully less ambitious in scope than those of Rostow and Wolfowitz. Both believe in multilateral diplomacy and in the efficacy of speaking with one's enemies, and both favor nuance over black-white solutions. So is there anything to worry about? Well, maybe. Power's call to arms in Darfur is laudable, but only as long as the overstretched U.S. military does not assume the preponderant burden in confronting the Sudanese Arab militias. The Clinton administration burst with moral purpose when it arrived in the White House. It took a well-intentioned but disastrous intervention in Somalia to denude Clinton's foreign policy of its altruistic core, leading to indecision and drift further down the line. Ikenberry's belief in strengthening "liberal" institutions has led him to endorse the proposal that the U.N. Security Council should add six new members to make it more representative of world opinion. To streamline decision-making, Ikenberry further supports the abolition of veto rights in favor of a simple three-quarter "supermajority" rule. Making the United Nations more democratic and effective is desirable. But as Harvard's Niall Ferguson has pointed out, giving up American power at that much-maligned institution has its own perils. Truman built institutions multilaterally, but he was careful to ensure that NATO and the Marshall Plan served America's national interest first and foremost. It is doubtful that Ikenberry's proposal passes that test. One historical parallel may be instructive. Few presidents have mined the elite academy more than Kennedy. But Kennedy's foreign policy instincts often were superior to those of his ivory tower hires. His caution on Vietnam, for example, made him far more prescient than either Bundy or Rostow. Pragmatic, well-schooled politicians often have a feel for what will fly that surpasses the most brilliant theorists. Obama's principled opposition to the 2003 Iraq war suggests that he too may possess diplomatic instincts superior to those around him. So, although there are clear benefits to be gained from consulting with social scientists, Obama will do well to follow his own counsel. The making of foreign policy requires a cognitive flexibility that too often eludes academics with theories to prove. David Milne, a lecturer in American politics at the University of East Anglia, is the author of "America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War."

Thanks. Anyway, last thing before I'm out of here; there have been all sorts of stories about how the rest of the world is celebrating Obam's win. I read this in one article about Kenya partying after hearing about Obama's victory: "I feel so very good now because my neighbor Barack Obama is president of the United States," said Richard Onyango, 30, an unemployed resident. "My area has been poor for such a long time, but now I think Obama will make things better." Jeez, talk about putting pressure on the guy...not only is he expected to fix the mess in the U.S., but now people think Obama's going to fix their country's problems, too?

Yes it did...hooray for North Carolina. Don't know how most of you spent election night, but I was with a bunch of friends at an election night party. We all brought food and champagne in hopes of an Obama victory. But the buzz of Obama's win was dampened with the disappointment at Prop. 8's passing here in California...that was the gay marriage ban. We were puzzled, how could voters be progressive enough to vote yes on 2(animal rights) and no on 4(parental notification of abortion) pass a gay marriage ban? Especially considering that Prop 8 was losing in the polls most of the year. That is, until a flood of Texas and Mormon money came flooding in the last week or so. And seeing how gay marriage bans passed with ease in Arizona and elsewhere, it may be a while before the issue is tackled again. I definitely don't think Obama should address it...not while the economy and the Iraq war need his attention. That was one of Clinton's first mistakes, that whole gays in the military thing, and was the impetus for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Get the economy and the war situation right, then you can worry about social issues. But when people are worried about their paycheck and their homes, the last thing they want to deal with is a culture war. That's why the usual Republican slurs that previously worked in past campaigns in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and North Carolina didn't work this time; all the distractions the GOP tried to bamboozle the heartland with, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Joe the Plumber, etc. never stuck, never gained traction with voters. Just as in 1992, it was the economy, stupid. So, I know it sounds harsh, but I'm afraid gays are just going to have to put the gay marriage issue on the back burner. Obama's first priority is the economy and the "war(s) on terror".

I was at that gig shown on the cover of the Sliver single...it was Feb. of 1990 at the late, great club Raji's on Hollywood Blvd. They played with Tad, I think. Later that summer, Nirvana and STP opened for Sonic Youth,at the Hollywood Palladium. I think there was also a Roxy show around this time, too. The next year "Nevermind" came out and that was pretty much the end of seeing Nirvana in small clubs. As for that Paradiso boot, I've seen it around on vinyl and cd.

Sorry, I didn't have my Kolinsky Sable Pointed Round Size 0 handy. Damn, I knew I had forgotten something. LoS, I did say not ALL of the South was that way...and I admire and applaud those who have stuck it out all these years trying to effect change from within, when it would have been so easy to just move away to somewhere else. And granted, having my most recent exposure to the South be a week on the McCain/Palin campaign trail might not have been conducive to seeing the best of the South, but hey, that's the internet...sometimes emotions get the better of you. No hard feelings, eh? On a more positive note, several things that I LOVE about the South are whiskey/bourbon; barbeque; Spanish moss; SEC football; and the musical heritage. Oh, and THANK YOU Virginia and Florida for bucking the recent trend; especially Virginia, which is all the more symbolic when you consider its history: excerpt from a Tim Rutten editorial in the L.A. Times: "According to the census of 1860, nearly a third of all Virginia residents were slaves. Richmond, the state's capital, would become capital of the Confederacy, and the Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee would become the rebellion's military bulwark. Tuesday, northern Virginia swung the state to Obama. America's tormented history of race relations began in Virginia in 1610, when a Dutch privateer in need of refitting bartered 20 African slaves captured from a Spanish ship for food and rigging. Virginia was the first colony to formally enact laws consigning indentured blacks to lifelong slavery based on race. Tuesday, a coalition of those slaves' descendants, young people of all races, Latinos and educated white voters swept all that stems from that tragic history into the realm of painful memory, when they carried Virginia into Obama's column."

Now, to LakeofShadows, eternal light, Suz, Hermit and some of the other Obama people here, beware the saying: Be careful what you wish for. With Obama winning and the Dems controlling both the Senate and the House, it is now up to the Democrats to put up or shut up. Let's hope they have learned the lessons of 1976 and 1992. I have faith in Obama. But I have zero faith in Nancy Pelosi. She knows about as much about the economy as Sarah Palin does about Russia. And just as the Republicans have a few right wing nutjobs, so too do the Dems have some looney libs that will only do Obama and the Dems harm if they get off-track and try to implement dubious economic legislation or pander to the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. Even with the recent economic woes, history has shown that the best economic system is still free-market capitalism combined with a democratic government. Marxism, socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, does not work...and never will. The Dems will also have to beware the shenanigans that rich right-wing wackos like Richard Scialfe and Harold Simmons will be trying to use to undermine any attempt by Obama to govern...and let's hope the media doesn't take the bait like they did with Whitewater and the Swiftboat ruses. Whatever happens now, it is going to take a long time to fix the mess we've gotten ourselves in...there are no quick fixes. And sacrifices will have to be made. But after last night, for the first time in 8 years, I have hope that better days are still to come and the good old U.S. of A. will be back on its feet and we can again be a shining beacon for liberty, equality and justice.

Robert Novak? You're kidding, right? You're posting a story by Robert effing Novak?!? He's one of the biggest hack fraud journo's around(cf. Valerie Plame), with about as much credibility as Del, Pg, FirstLedZep and the other Bush teabaggers here, so what Novak says means zilch, nada. You might as well post an Ann Coulter article. THE FIRST LEDZEP loses That would be nice if the Southern States would actually ACT like they are part of the USA. But they don't. I've spent quite a few years living in the South before, and just recently spent a couple of weeks there driving through and going to some of the McCain/Palin rallies. And, with the exception of a few pockets of rational educated people, it's a cesspool. In fact, at some of the McCain/Palin events, it was like being at a KKK rally. Guns, beer and idiots is a scary combination. What does it say about a region that still has antiquated concepts such as "dry counties" and "blue laws"? You see, the problem with the South is that they've never gotten over losing the Civil War. In fact, from almost the beginning, the South has been a drag on the rest of the USA. First was the whole slavery issue. Then, after the Civil War was lost, there was the shame of Jim Crow, and the officially sanctioned violence against the Civil Rights movement, and well, you just pick any time in this nation's history, while the majority of the country was progressing, the South was doing all it could to keep its head in the sand and stick to its hateful, bigoted ways. Consider this, people in the Northern and Western states have never had any problems voting for a politician from the South. Yet, all you ever hear when a politician from the North runs for President is "will people in the South vote for him?". And while you are driving thru the south, listening to the radio you will hear the scariest crap coming from these asshole evangelical preachers...stuff that makes the Rev. Wright look like a docile lamb of god. One can only imagine the grotesqueries one would hear inside one of their horrid big-box churches that mar the landscape of the South. That whole myth of the golden days of the "Plantation era" and the Southern belle is a crock, too. Never seen more skanks in my life than in the South. Delusional women whose ideal of masculinity is this cartoonish macho man with a cowboy hat and guns. Small wonder then, that most of them end up in abusive relationships with these bozos. Most knowledgable women in the south will tell you that, like a man trying to compensate for his lack of virility by buying a sports car, the more guns a guy has, the smaller his dick. Oh, and let's not forget that the divorce rate is higher in red states than in blue states; way to uphold the sanctity of marriage. And as for the confederate flag being about heritage...give me a break; so a German flying the Nazi flag is just honoring his heritage? Just this morning, I was reading an article about how these ignoramuses in the South are boo-hoo-hooing Obama's victory and saying they "fear for their way of life" and that Al Qaeda has won...are they kidding with this crap? A large percentage of the South still think Obama is a Muslim terrorist and he's gonna take away their guns and send them to re-education camps and force them to have abortions. But what do you expect when the only news source they get their information from is Fox news, aka Faux News...everytime you go into a bar or hotel in the South, the tv's are turned to Fox. Nah, I am sick of the South and their out-of-proportion hold on the electoral map...it's time for them to get with the program and join the 21st century; hell, I'd even settle for them joining the 20th century. Until then, the South can lick my balls.

For months I have been of the opinion that this election would be fairly close, one way or another, no matter what the polls said about either Obama or McCain having a big lead. My feelings were based on the fact that the majority of McCain supporters were older/conservative and THEY tend to usually get out the vote on a consistent basis...they know when and where their polling places are and don't mind the wait. Whereas with Obama's supporters, who skew mostly younger and many will be first-time voters, you just don't know if all those people telling pollsters they are for Obama will ACTUALLY get out and vote tomorrow. Will they forget the vote is tomorrow? Do they know where their polling place is? And, given how Gens X, Y and Z are so ADD-addled and obsessed with instant gratification, how do we know that if these young kids show up at the polling place and see a big line that they won't blow it off as too long a wait for them? But in the last week I've had a change of heart...I think Obama wins...and wins BIG! And one thing that has turned me from pessimist to optimist is this: most of my conservative friends have completely soured on McCain/Palin. I have 11 friends that are conservative. 1 is voting for John McCain. 1 is voting for Bob Barr. 2 are voting for Ron Paul. 3 are voting for Barack Obama. And the other 4 are sitting this election out in disgust with all the candidates. Yes, I'm aware my sample is hardly scientific...still, I'm hearing from other people from across the country who report similar disillusionment with McCain/ Palin and the craven Rovian campaign they have chosen to run. I just feel the groundswell of excitement building for Obama and his supporters, contrasted with a lack of same for McCain.

Well, I voted yesterday...since I figure it is going to be crazy Tuesday, I decided to beat the rush and take advantage of California's early voting. Meanwhile, while the rest of you wait for Tuesday, someone sent me this and I'm passing it along...although you might have already seen this. Dear Red States... If you manage to steal the election again, we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California. To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. We get Tina Fey and Christiane Amanpour. You get Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of under-educated single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties. By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Texas and Arkansas. Peace out, Blue States

Sad, so sad...what a great man and a MUSIC LEGEND! And this post only gets two responses?!? That is really sad...and shameful.