Can't argue with that you there...talent does seem subpar compared to last year and before...but still like Tom and Padma. And I LOVE it whenever Anthony Bourdain is a guest judge...and HIS show on the Travel Channel is a don't-miss hoot! Hopefully next season they'll go to a better city than Chicago.

Thought this was timely considering how it deals with internet rumors...just the sort that someone posted the other day about Michelle Obama. Barack Obama vs. the Internet rumor machine By David Sarno June 11, 2008 Rumors have always traveled fast, but when it comes to politics, the whispering campaigns and defamatory leaflets of yesteryear don't hold a candle to the button that beats them all. "Forward": the marvelous technology that allows truths and untruths alike to be propagated widely, instantly, and at no cost to the sender. Thanks to Forward-thinking citizens, the online rumors are flying in this campaign like no campaign season before. Dozens and even hundreds of different e-mail chain letters -- most targeting Sen. Barack Obama -- are being circulated in the Internet's muggy back channels, where context suffers and falsehoods flourish. Add in the parts of the political blogosphere that survive on speculation and unsourced hearsay, and you have a petri dish capable of growing such vivid rumors that the best of them actually make it into the mouths of the Washington press corps -- without so much as a factoid to back them up. At Snopes.com, the urban legends clearinghouse run by a couple in the San Fernando Valley, Barack Obama's page has 18 entries, only one of which Snopes determined to be true. Of the rest, Snopes rated 11 false, four partly true and two undetermined. The same pattern holds true at PolitiFact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. In its "Chain Emails" section, 21 of the 25 e-mails they've reviewed are marked "Barely True," "False" or "Pants on Fire." Of those, 2 out of 3 were aimed at Obama, and the remainder at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why Obama is such a magnet for outlandish Web allegations, while Clinton and especially Sen. John McCain have gotten off easier, invites some tricky questions. No one I talked to for this story wanted to say that the candidate's race, an area that can bring out all kinds of rumor-fueling fears and resentments, is the primary factor. And maybe it isn't: The number of Americans online has grown plenty since 2004, and astronomically since 2000 -- there are a lot more great-aunts sending around e-mail petitions in big, colorful fonts. The Internet is now without a doubt the most effective rumor mill mankind has ever devised. But it's hard to ignore that the rumors about Obama tend to have something to do with his being black. A glance at the Obama-related canards reveals that they mostly fall into three categories, which sometimes overlap: race, religion and patriotism. Part of the odd nature of Internet rumors which holds true here is that even after they've been debunked in multiple places and for some time, they continue to make the rounds. Bill Adair, PolitiFact's editor, likened the chain e-mails to virus-like "organisms," calling them "a resilient form of communication that resists scrutiny" and is essentially unfiltered. "It's not like Hotmail is going to say, 'Well, were not going to deliver that message because it's wrong,' " Adair said. "That message is going to get through, and it's going to be up to the reader to determine if it's true or not." Obama's campaign has set up a rumor-busting task force that maintains a Web page at Factcheck.barackobama.com, to address some of these stubborn allegations. One section, entitled "Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim," collates several articles from national media outlets, including two from The Times, that weigh against the claim. Another section, "Obama Is a Patriot Who Loves His Flag and His Country," has an even larger collection of supporting excerpts. When asked about the churn of questionable rumors, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor was not shy about noting that "disinformation campaigns are the hallmark of some of the most vicious campaigns on the Republican side. It's not something that's new to this campaign, but it may be getting particular attention this round. "It's frankly disconcerting when the press corps start asking about rumors that have no basis in fact," he added, "but it's something that we realized early on would be a problem." Last week one such dubious story made the rounds online -- but this time it was the blogosphere that was cultivating it. Larry Johnson, a former CIA employee and national security analyst, wrote several times on his NoQuarter blog about the existence of a videotape that purportedly showed Michelle Obama using the word "whitey." But, as Reason Magazine's David Weigel pointed out in multiple critiques of Johnson's information, Johnson had no direct evidence of the video. He had not seen actually seen it, he wrote, but rather had "heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape." As Weigel told me over the phone, in the world of professional journalism, "No one who didn't want to just get fired would source a story like that." Weigel also noted in his post that Johnson's account of the tape's key details -- where it took place and which famous personages were in it -- changed over the course of several days, but Johnson's insistence on the tape's existence did not. (I couldn't reach Johnson for a comment.) Still, the rumor made its way onto more than a few blogs, most of which were conservative. And on June 3, Democratic pundit Bob Beckel alluded to the tape on FOX News, again as hearsay and without naming sources. The videotape of the Beckel segment was passed around in various incarnations on YouTube, adding to the speculation but not the evidence. Finally, a McClatchy reporter asked Obama for his thoughts on the rumor. "We have seen this before," Obama replied, according to Politico.com's Ben Smith. "There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails, and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it. "That gives legs to the story," Obama said. And that's precisely the dilemma in reporting on rumors. As Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, explained: "The problem is that if the mainstream media address" a particular rumor, "they run the risk that they're actually going to reinforce it. " On the other hand, she said, in a medium such as e-mail that's largely hidden from public view and for which "there isn't any natural way to make a rebuttal, a whole lot of people are potentially exposed to information that's untrue, and they don't have any way of knowing it." Jamieson and PolitiFact's Adair agreed that peoples' tendency to buy into forwarded information depends largely on who sent it. "When you get the e-mail from a friend of yours, you're more likely to believe it than if you get it from a stranger." Only problem with that, Jamieson said, is that, if you consider its origin, "the stuff you're getting from a friend is from a stranger." This is a campaign in which candidates have been all over YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, and the Web's connective power has awakened a generation of youthful voters. It figures then that e-mail — one of the Internet's oldest technologies — is also the one that's moving the political conversation backwards instead of forward.

With the exception of the first year of MTV's "Real World", I never got into any of the "reality tv" shows...never watched "Survivor", "American Idol", "Bachelor", "Big Brother", Brett Michaels or Flavor Flav...nothing. Nothing, that is, until I discovered "Top Chef" a few years ago. And for me, Top Chef got even better when they got rid of Billy Joel's wife and replaced her with Padma Lakshmi. This season's Top Chef:Chicago is winding down and I can't believe how Lisa is STILL around...this whiny bitch fucked up her rice TWO WEEKS in a row and still got a pass? But I gotta think the end comes for her tonight. I'm personally rooting for Stephanie. And guess what...Padma is a Zeppelin fan...here's an article from today's paper: Top Chef/Padma Likshmi article

Well, that didn't take long. Get ready for all kinds of mudslinging folks...Lee Atwater may be dead and Karl Rove supposedly not involved in McCain's campaign, but you can bet your life the smear tactics style of Atwater/Rove will be in full effect.

Are you kidding? This is exactly the kind of mindless thinking that the article was talking about! Congress is NOT there to blindly follow their President and rubber-stamp his every whim. Congress is there as OUR representatives. And you say the GOP should have defended Bush? What Bush and Cheney and his cronies have done the last 8 years is nigh undefensible. Bush's ratings would have sank with or without the GOP's support. The PEOPLE are sick and tired of Bush/Cheney! Go back and read the article, then read the United States Constitution and learn what your House and Senate representatives are there for...believe me, it is not to be the President's sycophants, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, whatever party is in power.

I can concur with your brother's statements, Otto. Zeppelin were loud, but never PAINFULLY so, although Bonzo made sure you felt him in your gut...but Purple in 73 were brutal. What made Zeppelin unique to me, and still does to this day, is how their drums sounded in concert...most concerts you go to and the drums are just a booming presence with no real tone or crispness. You might hear a snare hit or cymbal crash cleanly now and then, but the bottom end is usually a sludgy mess, especially if it's one of those speed-metal bands with a drummer with two kick-drums. Bonzo was a different story, which makes sense as it was Zeppelin's drum sound on their studio records that immediately set them apart from the pack when they first arrived...I don't know if it was the way they mic'd his drums or the way Bonzo tuned them or just some magic alchemy of the band...but you HEARD the drums at a Zeppelin concert better than at any other rock concert of the time. Bonzo had a snare sound like no other and you could always tell when he was hitting the floor toms or the rack tom or the bass drum...it was loud, but a well-defined loud, with crispness and clarity. Anyway, just to ammend my top 5 from above...the next 5 loudest bands I've seen would be: Earth Sunn O))) Acid Mothers Temple Mars Volta Manowar

Hahaha...I was just thinking of posting that Dave Alvin article and lo and behold, Jahfin beat me to it. Anyway, it is always sad when a legend passes, but at least he lived a long life...longer than some others. In my book, Bo Diddley was second only to Chuck Berry in the influence he had on establishing the "sound" of rock and roll. Glad I got to see him when he was still relatively young...although I was out of town for that gig that Dave Alvin writes about unfortunately, as X and the Blasters were two of my favourite bands of that time.

My Top 5 Loudest Concerts/Bands are: 1. MY BLOODY VALENTINE @ the Roxy, Hollywood Feb. 2, 1992 Easily the LOUDEST show I've experienced...it wasn't even close; the other shows were all plenty loud, but it was only at this show where I literally feared for my health...during the last song, a 25 minute "You Made Me Realize" complete with a sheer wall of feedback break in the middle, I thought my ears were gonna bleed. The sound was literally a PHYSICAL force punching you in the gut and frying your brain...IMMENSE...BEAUTIFUL...a sound unlike any other I have ever heard in my life. I can only hope they are just as loud on their comeback tour later this year. 2. DEEP PURPLE @ Long Beach Arena April 15, 1973 3. MOTORHEAD @ Hammersmith Odeon, London March 28, 1982 4. THE WHO @ LA Forum Nov. 22 & 23, 1973 and Anaheim Stadium March 21, 1976 5. RAMONES @ the Roxy, Hollywood Aug. 12, 1976 Next on the list would be any of the Led Zeppelin shows I saw...especially the 1973 and 1975 tours, as there was no acoustic set to give you a break.

Of course, it doesn't matter who gets into the White House, there won't be any REAL change until Congress gets it act together and remembers what they are there for...as this op-ed makes it clear: IS THERE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS IN THE HOUSE? Lawmakers act as if they have taken an oath to serve the president or their party, not the Constitution. By Mickey Edwards Los Angeles Times June 3, 2008 The central feature of American government, the one that made the United States "exceptional" and preserved our freedoms for more than 200 years, is in the process of being destroyed. The enemy is not in Iraq or the hills of Pakistan but in Washington and in cities and towns throughout the United States. America's founders, it turns out, were not as smart as we thought. They assumed that if they put most of the nation's real powers -- over war, taxes and spending -- in the hands of the people themselves, through their representatives, those representatives would do their duty and prevent an American president from acting as though he were king. Congress was not to be a copy of the British Parliament but its exact opposite: Whereas Parliament is essentially an extension of the executive (the prime minister's party always controls Parliament, and its members are expected to enact his or her proposals) and members need not have any connection to the "constituencies" they allegedly represent, the American system requires members of Congress to come from the states they represent and to serve as a check on -- not enabler of -- the president. It's a simple enough concept but one apparently hard for members of Congress to grasp. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) was quoted recently bemoaning the fact that legislators were going to have to fend for themselves in November's elections. "You are going to run on who you are and establish some independence," he told the New York Times, "and that is going to be tougher for some than others." Having served in Congress myself, I feel sad for those members who are going to find it tough to run as who they are and "establish some independence," but I had assumed that was precisely what they were supposed to do. The opposite, of course, would be to pretend to be someone other than who one really is, or to have no convictions other than to obey somebody else's directives (presumably those of the president or party leaders). Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has a similar confusion. Interviewed on National Public Radio, she said part of her job as House speaker was to ensure that there would be a Democratic majority in the next Congress. That, of course, is likely to happen regardless of what she does, but that is actually the job of the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Pelosi's job is to legislate and to see to it that the House fulfills its constitutional duties as a separate, independent and equal branch of the federal government. Tom Cole, the Oklahoma congressman who is chairman of the Republican campaign committee in the House, inherited a mess, including a deeply unpopular president and a host of GOP incumbents heading for the hills, and has been unfairly blamed for the party's losses in this year's special elections (full disclosure: He is a friend who once worked on my congressional staff). But even Cole, who holds a doctorate and is one of the smartest members of Congress, sometimes loses sight of what it means to be a member of the legislative branch. Asked about the desirability of distancing oneself from George W. Bush, Cole told the Washington Post that "it's not for me to second-guess the president of the United States." Yes, it is. That is precisely the constitutional obligation of a member of Congress -- to second-guess, challenge, question and, when necessary, serve as a check on a president. In November, voters will elect every member of the House and one-third of the members of the Senate. In January, each successful candidate will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Perhaps it would be good for each of them to get a crash course in exactly what that means. Mickey Edwards is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma. His new book is "Reclaiming Conservatism." He is now a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.

Since the Tribune takeover of the Los Angeles Times, the Times has slipped in quality...especially in the op-ed section, where we usually get the puerile prattle and ditsy ditherings of morons like Joel Stein and Meghan Daum. So shock of shocks, this week, not one but actually two decent and noteworthy editorials appeared in the L.A. Times. I'll post them seperately...first off, this piece that is as good an analysis I've yet read on the reasons Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from what seemed like sure victory when the campaign started: "IT'S THE IRAQ WAR, STUPID" Clinton's failed campaign resembled Bush's strategy on the Iraq war. By Rosa Brooks Los Angeles Times June 5, 2008 'It's the economy, stupid," said James Carville, summing up Bill Clinton's 1992 win over George H.W. Bush. Bush started out with incumbent status and an impressive resume, but he never managed to wrap his mind around the fact of the recession. In the end, he lost to Clinton -- the candidate from nowhere. Sixteen years later, it's Clinton's wife who's found herself in the elder Bush's position. Hillary Rodham Clinton began the Democratic primary with a famous name, thousands of Democrats who owed their careers to her husband, an enviable war chest and scores of superdelegates in her pocket before the race even began. All the same, she lost. To a guy few had heard of four years ago. A black guy with the unpropitious name of Barack Hussein Obama, who had no money, no superdelegates and no political machine. But this week, he won, fair and square. How did Clinton go from inevitable to irrelevant in six months? If Carville were still at the top of his game, he'd be telling Clinton: It's Iraq, stupid. In more ways than one. Start with the obvious. The Democratic electorate was antiwar from the get-go -- yet Clinton voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So did John Edwards, but he later offered heartfelt apologies for his vote. Clinton never got beyond a mealy-mouthed "mistakes have been made" non-apology. Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, but he managed to make the right call on Iraq. Over time, Clinton adopted strong antiwar policies -- but in February 2007, she irritably insisted to a New Hampshire audience that "if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that [2002 Iraq] vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." Voters across the country took the hint. In the January Iowa caucuses, Clinton only took a third of the pledged delegates; Obama and Edwards, perceived as more staunchly antiwar, cleaned up the remaining two-thirds. In New Hampshire, Clinton took nine delegates; Obama and Edwards took 13 between them. And so it went. Even in many of the states Clinton won, the "not-Clinton" vote was substantial. But Clinton's Iraq problem went beyond her 2002 vote and her failure to truly repudiate it. She gradually sharpened her critique of President Bush's Iraq policies -- but ironically, as time wore on, the resemblances between her campaign style and Bush's Iraq strategy become eerie and striking. Like Bush and his Iraq campaign, Clinton, astonishingly, had no clear battle plan beyond the first weeks. Like Bush, she thought victory was inevitable -- she'd stun her opponents with shock and awe, and by Super Tuesday, the Democratic electorate would greet her as their liberator. As in Iraq, it didn't work out. Shock and awe fizzled: Obama took Iowa and held his own on Super Tuesday. The insurgency spread like wildfire -- by mid-February, Obama was riding a wave of grass-roots support that Clinton had never prepared for. By late February, Obama had built up a pledged delegate advantage virtually impossible for Clinton to eliminate, but Clinton's campaign responded to bad news in the race just as the Bush administration had responded to bad news from Iraq. Staff loyalty was valued over staff truth-telling, so the boss was kept in a bubble, shielded from harsh truths. Change strategy? Nonsense, no need -- we're winning! Inconvenient facts on the ground? No problem; ignore the reality! Or perhaps we'll try a surge -- too little too late. Rules, regulations or laws getting in the way? Those don't apply to us. Thus, the Clinton campaign insisted that caucuses shouldn't count, that Clinton "really" led in the popular vote (true if you use fuzzy Clintonesque math), that the Democratic National Committee rulings on Michigan and Florida's delegates shouldn't be honored, and so on. So much for the rule of law! Reality-based thinking, that Democratic rallying cry, was also jettisoned. As late as Tuesday night, when Obama clinched the nomination, Clinton spokesman Terry McAuliffe was introducing Clinton as "the next president of the United States." Right. Maybe it was her husband's influence. Bill Clinton famously said that in times of uncertainty, "wrong and strong" beats "weak and right." But Hillary Clinton should know better. The Democrats are in a position to retake the White House precisely because so many Americans finally got sick of George W. Bush, who exemplifies the "wrong and strong" approach. But let's be reality-based thinkers. "Wrong and strong" eventually leaves us weaker, because wrong is still wrong. And the thousands of dead in Iraq are still dead. And Hillary Clinton still isn't the Democratic Party's nominee. rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

For those who won't be watching the NBA Finals, or can tivo it, tonight brings a chance to be in the presence of a real, genuine LEGEND of Hollywood...a real M-A-N, MAN: Clint Eastwood!!! Here's the link to the event with info, etc. Clint Eastwood @ American Cinematheque

So after seeing threads for the Spurs and the Celtics, I said man, there's gotta be some Laker fans on this board...Big Klu and I can't be the ONLY Southern California guys on here! L.A. was Led Zeppelin's golden stomping ground, their home away from home, so it would seem to follow that many of the people on this board might hail from the Los Angeles and Orange counties. On the eve of one of the most anticipated NBA Championships in recent memory, against our ancient hated rivals the Boston Celtics, it is time for us Laker fans to band together...hell, you don't even have to be a Laker fan, you might just hate the Boston Celtics, or anything to do with Boston: the Red Sox, Patriots, John Kerry, Clam Chowder, whatever. Let us now issue forth that clarion call: BOSTON SUCKS! GO LAKERS!

Yes, the Police WERE good and if goddamn Kiss can have a thread on here, then by all means the Police deserve one, too. Their albums were good, and a couple were even better than good, and their concerts were energetic and fun...first time I saw them was when they opened for the Cars in 1978 and boy, talk about your disparities: Cars just standing there bored stiff, while the Police bounced around the room and blew the Cars off the stage! But, and I mean BUT, this Police reunion tour has been one big drag...exhorbitant ticket prices, lifeless shows...not even close to what the Police once were. That said, get their albums for sure if you haven't already.

Went to the Iron Maiden/ Anthrax/ Lauren Harris concert at Irvine Meadows this past Friday night May 30...due to traffic, missed Lauren's(Steve Harris' daughter... bring your daughter to the slaughter anyone?) set. Didn't notice any loudness issues with the sound...it wasn't the LOUDEST show I've been to, but it seemed loud enough from where I was sitting. Not the greatest Iron Maiden show I've seen...nothing to compare with the Maiden shows I saw from 1981-87...but it was still pretty rocking. The Trooper is always a great moment, and I totally wasn't expecting Rime of the Ancient Mariner. As usual at Irvine, people indulged in that hoary old cliche of setting bonfires in the grass area above the seats. All in all, I'm glad I went, as I hadn't seen Iron Maiden in ages and watching that Metal weekend on VH1 Classic last week got me in the mood to see them again. Could have done without the Seventh Son songs...would have liked to hear Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Wrathchild or Murders in the Rue Morgue instead. Here is the setlist from the show: Transylvania (over the PA with Ed Force 1 footage) 1. Churchill's Speech/Aces High 2. 2 Minutes to Midnight 3. Revelations 4. The Trooper 5. Wasted Years 6. Number of the Beast 7. Can I Play with Madness 8. Rime of the Ancient Mariner 9. Powerslave 10. Heaven Can Wait 11. Run to the Hills 12. Fear of the Dark 13. Iron Maiden Encore: 14. Moonchild 15. The Clairvoyant 16. Hallowed Be Thy Name Oh, and for those interested, here is Anthrax's set: 1. Indians 2. Got The Time 3. Caught In A Mosh 4. Madhouse 5. Antisocial 6. Room For One More 7. Safe Home 8. Only 9. I Am The Law Ummm, I'm no Anthrax expert, but it didn't look like Joey Belladonna up there singing...yes, I know:I'll google or wikipedia it, haha.

Eh, this is a day late I know...but I was super busy yesterday and besides, whenever I sit down to write one of these memorial-type posts, I always get verklempt and am at a loss for words. Even now, after all these years later, I still am saddened by the loss of Bonzo, and how much better the music world would be if he was still around with his mighty beat. Suffice to say, he was and will always be the Hammer of the Gods, my favourite drummer of my favourite group of all-time. Bonzo, I drank some Ballantine's yesterday in your honour...and I'll drink more today! Cheers! P.S. It was 35 years ago that I saw the LA/SF 1973 shows...I'll post about THAT in the LZ Live thread.

I feel you Klu...I HATE Boston and have ever since watching my first NBA Finals in 1969 when Don Nelson's shot bounced 10 feet off the rim and dropped in to beat the Lakers(damn Jack Cooke and his damn balloons). But come on, be realistic...did you EVER in your wildest dreams think the Lakers would be in the Finals this year? Did you? If you did, well mister you're a better man than I. Wonder what the odds were before the season of Lakers making the Finals; could have made a fortune I bet putting a $1000 or even $100 down on them.

Me, that's who...never have, and hopefully never will...I intend to hold out as long as I can. Don't own a blackberry or ipod either.

I'll make a deal with you Spur fans: You don't whine about the Bones/D-Fish foul-non-call and I won't mention that it shouldn't have even mattered had the refs not BLOWN the fact that Fisher's shot hit the rim, which would have given Lakers fresh 24 seconds, eliminating the need for Kobe to jack the shot immediately on inbounds play with 2 seconds left. That said, I always enjoy playoff series vs. San Antonio...they are worthy rivals and they will be back next year. Before this year's WCF, I was fearful of Horry hitting big 3's to hurt the Lakers and was mildly shocked at how much a non-factor he was against LA. Love Pops and Manu...got much respect for them. Frankly, before this season started I thought Lakers might win between 30-40 games; didn't even think Kobe would be on the team. Shows what I know...hell, I'm satisfied making the Finals. If they lose to Boston or Detroit, I'll still be happy for what they accomplished this season...AND we get Bynam back next season! So, all in all, I can't complain...and I get to stick it to those Clipper fans who bragged that it was a new day in L.A. when Shaq got traded away and that it would be a Clipper town from now on...yeah, how did that turn out for you Clipper fans? Now, bring on Boston for a glorious Laker-Celtic matchup...just like the NBA glory days of the '80's!

Ahhhh...now that Memorial Day has passed, the Summer concert season really gets in gear and the concert schedule gets a bit crowded and hard to pick one show over another. Just saw the Police/Elvis Costello show at the Hollywood Bowl this past Wednesday (Police slightly better than the Dodger Stadium show last summer, but still this Police reunion has to rank up there as one of the biggest letdowns ever...not nearly as exciting as the Zeppelin O2 reunion gig/as for Elvis, he's been slipping last few years and I just don't like him as much as I did from '77 to about '86). Last night(thursday May 29) brought R.E.M. to the Bowl, and again REM is a band that has seen better days...haven't really LOVED one of their albums since "Automatic for the People"...but new one seems better than last two from what I heard last night; but to me, REM just isn't the same without the four original members. Upcoming concerts I am going to see: Tonight May 30: Iron Maiden & Anthrax @ Irvine Meadows. Saturday May 31: Swervedriver @ Henry Fonday Theatre Sunday June 1: Cure @ Shrine Auditorium Monday June 2: Aimee Mann @ Largo(grand opening of the new Largo after the old one on Fairfax closed earlier this month.) Later this month of course is the Robert Plant/Alison Krauss shows June 23-24 @ the Greek. July brings Low @ Troubadour club and August it's Radiohead @ Hollywood Bowl. And tickets go on sale Saturday for Black Crowes Sept. 17 show @ the Greek. And I'm sure there will be other concerts this summer that I'll decide to hit at the last minute. Far in the future, I've already got my tix for both nights of My Bloody Valentine's stand @ Santa Monica Civic October 1 & 2...YEAH!!!!! ROCK ON PEOPLE!!!

GO LAKERS!

Interesting to read all of your reactions...and hello back at you, Allison! When I was around 9 or so, and living in Costa Mesa, me and my friend would get up early and bicycle our way along the Santa Ana River to Huntington Beach, surf and swim all day and bike back at dusk. During baseball season, we would catch a bus to the Big A to watch the California Angels, especially on days when Nolan Ryan was pitching. There were also the wilds of Irvine to explore for hours on end(before all the development that it has now). I remember one time, when I was 7, when all of us neighborhood kids were running around the block and I climbed up a side fence and jumped down and my foot landed square on a nail stuck in a board hidden by the tall grass. Blood was everywhere, but my parents didn't panic and just took me to the doctor's the next day to have a tetnus shot. More importantly, and rare today, they didn't sue the parents of the house where I injured myself. I was 10 years old when I first saw Led Zeppelin. Now that I have godsons and nephews and nieces, I take them to concerts when I can, and I let them invite any of their friends if they want. You'd be amazed at the reaction of some of these parents...one of my godson's friends is 14 and his parents still won't let him go to a rock concert. I know other kids that are 9-10 years old and don't know how to ride a bike. What kind of childhood is that? You can use a blackberry or cellphone but can't ride a bicycle? My childhood wasn't perfect, but it sure seems like heaven compared to what I see childhood is like today.

Thanks and cheers back at ya! Didn't know anybody would even remember me from the old board, let alone be glad to know I am still here. I've never been a frequent poster...then or now. But I pop in when I can....usually to check on any new Zep bootleg info(upgrades, new shows, etc.), and if there is any info this Zep concert veteran can impart to the board, I try to post it if I have the knowledge.

Being that this is a music website, I try to keep my postings music-related. But since one of my pet-peeves is how over the years, yuppies have squeezed all the fun out of childhood, this recent op-ed from the L.A. Times is too good and close to my heart for me not to share with you. Would love to hear people's reactions, and maybe from some of you old-timers like myself, your memories of what your childhood was like. Remember 'go outside and play?' Overbearing parents have taken the fun out of childhood and turned it into a grind. By Rosa Brooks Los Angeles Times May 15, 2008 Can you forgive her? In March, Lenore Skenazy, a New York City mother, gave her 9-year-old son, Izzy, a MetroCard, a subway map, a $20 bill and some quarters for pay phones. Then she let him make his own way home from Bloomingdale's department store -- by subway and bus. Izzy survived unscathed. He wasn't abducted by a perverted stranger or pushed under an oncoming train by a homicidal maniac. He didn't even get lost. According to Skenazy, who wrote about it in a New York Sun column, he arrived home "ecstatic with independence." His mother wasn't so lucky. Her column generated as much outrage as if she'd suggested that mothers make extra cash by hiring their kids out as child prostitutes. But it also reinvigorated an important debate about children, safety and independence. Reader, if you're much over 30, you probably remember what it used to be like for the typical American kid. Remember how there used to be this thing called "going out to play"? For younger readers, I'll explain this archaic concept. It worked like this: The child or children in the house -- as long as they were over age 4 or so -- went to the door, opened it, and ... went outside. They braved the neighborhood pedophile just waiting to pounce, the rusty nails just waiting to be stepped on, the trees just waiting to be fallen out of, and they "played." "Play," incidentally, is a mysterious activity children engage in when not compelled to spend every hour under adult supervision, taking soccer or piano lessons or practicing vocabulary words with computerized flashcards. All in all, "going out to play" worked out well for kids. As the American Academy of Pediatrics' Dr. Kenneth Ginsburg testified to Congress in 2006, "Play allows children to create and explore a world they can master, conquering their fears while practicing adult roles. ... Play helps children develop new competencies ... and the resiliency they will need to face future challenges." But here's the catch: Those benefits aren't realized when some helpful adult is hovering over kids the whole time. Thirty years ago, the "going out to play" culture coexisted with other culturally sanctioned forms of independence for even very young children: Kids as young as 6 used to walk to school on their own, for instance, or take public buses or -- gulp -- subways. And if they lived on a school bus route, their mommies did not consider it necessary to escort them to the bus stop every morning and wait there with them. But today, for most middle-class American children, "going out to play" has gone the way of the dodo, the typewriter and the eight-track tape. From 1981 to 1997, for instance, University of Michigan time-use studies show that 3- to 5-year-olds lost an average of 501 minutes of unstructured playtime each week; 6- to 8-year-olds lost an average of 228 minutes. (On the other hand, kids now do more organized activities and have more homework, the lucky devils!) And forget about walking to school alone. Today's kids don't walk much at all (adding to the childhood obesity problem). Increasingly, American children are in a lose-lose situation. They're forced, prematurely, to do all the un-fun kinds of things adults do (Be over-scheduled! Have no downtime! Study! Work!). But they don't get any of the privileges of adult life: autonomy, the ability to make their own choices, use their own judgment, maybe even get interestingly lost now and then. Somehow, we've managed to turn childhood into a long, hard slog. Is it any wonder our kids take their pleasures where they can find them, by escaping to "Grand Theft Auto IV" or the alluring, parent-free world of MySpace? But, but, but, you say, all the same, Skenazy should never have let her 9-year-old son take the subway! In New York, for God's sake! A cesspit of crack addicts, muggers and pedophiles! Well, no. We parents have sold ourselves a bill of goods when it comes to child safety. Forget the television fear-mongering: Your child stands about the same chance of being struck by lightning as of being the victim of what the Department of Justice calls a "stereotypical kidnapping." And unless you live in Baghdad, your child stands a much, much greater chance of being killed in a car accident than of being seriously harmed while wandering unsupervised around your neighborhood. Skenazy responded to the firestorm generated by her column by starting a new website -- freerangekids.wordpress.com -- dedicated to giving "our kids the freedom we had." She explains: "We believe in safe kids. ... We do NOT believe that every time school-age children go outside, they need a security detail." Next time I take my kids to New York, I'm asking Skenazy to baby-sit.

Seen Mars Volta about 10 times now...can say they are very intense live, with Cedric being incredible to watch as he dances crazily around the stage....and the drummer is incredible as well...well, he WAS that is, as Jon Theodore has left the band since I saw them last, and been replaced by new drummer Blake Fleming. I have yet to see Mars Volta in concert with the current line-up. Omar can be an amazing guitar player, but as someone else noted, their "jams" can sound a little one-note, with Omar going crazy on the effects, and they never seem to hit a groove. They're too ADD for that. Also, unless the sound is good in the venue, and you have good seats, you may not hear all that is going on, what with all the percussion and horns and such...the soundboard guy has to really be on his toes, or the band's sound suffers in concert. One thing I can say is that I am lucky in being from LA, as that means that John Frusciante will show up and play at just about every Mars Volta gig they play; I think of the 10 shows I've seen, John played at 8 of them. In short, if you like their records and haven't seen them live, it is worth your while to check them out...they play long(2 and 1/2 to 3 hours) and hard and LOUD!