Sure, you can think up all kinds of "what ifs" and "maybes", or you can believe what's clearly in front of your eyes.

This is very common pattern (from the wiki page for the 2020 election), the only insane people are the ones denying the reality of a red/blue divide:

There is a red state/blue state division even within states (as I already mentioned). Outside of cesspools like LA and San Fran California is very different. There is no reason to think most military members (who tend to come from conservative backgrounds) would support a Californian national government simply because of their particular residency. And BTW: those military installations belong to the Federal Government, not the state government.

It's getting safer and more effective! Fourteen young Canadian docs die after getting the shot. Normally would be ~0 over 30 years. (substack.com)

Technically, I'm a geek, not a nerd. You're sounding more like a parasite who's been discovered and freaking out, and less like someone whose position is inherently strong.

So take a hike. What are you waiting for? If California is such a powerhouse - economically, socially, etc. - then what do you need the rest of the backwards US for? Form a Cali-NY axis and be done with it. Seriously, get the fuck out already. Your posturing is getting boring.

Safe and effective: Tedros avoided Covid vaccination for five months until Africa went first (substack.com)

Money laundering pit: Monsanto and BlackRock are buying up Ukraine (freewestmedia.com)

No, it is the same thing, as explicitly stated in your first link: "In fact, most high-tax states send more money to Washington than they get back in federal spending." Which is true but misleading: Behind the Misleading Statement That Blue States Subsidize Red States (townhall.com) Are Red States Tax Takers And Blue States Tax Makers? (thefederalist.com) Bongino | Liberals Resurrect Myth That Blue States Subsidize Red States Again: blue states are in such bad financial shape because of their own grotesque mismanagement, not because they're getting ripped off by red states through the tax system. Now, if you are arguing that tax revenue should only be spent in the areas/locations where it's collected, then in some sense you are arguing for some kind of secession, which I fully support (I would prefer the term "peaceful separation"). By all means: let California and NY go their own way, best of luck to them, and leave the rest of us alone. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Fully agree that Page dropped the ball big time on releasing live stuff. There's a lot more he should have done, and still could, but won't. A real pity. But I think a big part of this has to do with your assessment of the band live post-72. I myself think July of '73 was their peak, although you are right about March of that year, it's not too far behind. And I disagree about the caliber of the MSG shows: while no single NYC night is the best of that tour, as a whole they have some of the best moments. Issues with the movie/soundtrack notwithstanding (and again, all official live albums are doctored in some way), TSRTS is a legitimate live document of the band. If nothing else it shows well the blend of pure musicianship (of pre-73) and superstar excess (of post-73), that kind of encapsulates Zeppelin.

I think this is nit-picking. Obviously there are quirks to the album (esp. the original '76 version), but all official live releases are augmented in some way (Made in Japan is no exception). TSRTS is a legitimate live representation of the band (at or near their peak). Certainly some of Page's finest live playing is well-captured by it (NQ, STH, most of DC). Is it imperfect or could it have been much better? Of course, but that's not the point. It's a valid live representation of the band (official naming due to the movie aside), released by the band, and it should count as a live album.

Uh-oh, the forum police are here; everyone, quick, hide your stash! On a more serious note, I will say this re. Zep: avoiding UK residency in the 70's for tax purposes does not exactly scream "bleeding heart liberal".

Yes. It is true that "blue" states pay more in taxes than they receive from the Federal Government, while for "red" states this is reversed. However this is a very strange thing for liberals to object to, because it's entirely because of the progressive taxation system they support! In fact it's reflected within states (urban vs rural), not just between them. I.e., richer people (who, by the nature of the progressive system pay more taxes) tend to live in urban/blue areas, while poorer people (who again, by the nature of the progressive system pay less taxes) tend to live in rural/red ares. However, it's ridiculous to claim that urban/blue areas "subsidize/support" rural/red areas, the reverse is likely more true. (And it's even more absurd to claim that the well-known financial train-wreck conditions of cities and blue states are because of tax imbalances with conservative regions. It's their appalling profligacy that's to blame.) BTW, murder rates in America follow a demographic pattern that is very identifiable if you're not blinded by PC. And there is a common denominator in poor Southern rural areas and rich Northern urban centers, for anyone who cares to open their eyes.

That's right. Remember how at the end of the Soviet Union, they kept bringing out all these old, decrepit dudes to run the government? That's the US right now.

Clearly, the war in Ukraine is going so well that the US has now set its sights on China. Here is a truly inspiring speech in support of our democratic values in the rules-based order:

A bit OT, but another good example of "trusting the science": Top Physicist Admits "Distant Star" Photo Was Actually Chorizo | ZeroHedge

This was obvious from the outset: Ukraine: military endangering civilians by locating forces in residential areas - new research | Amnesty International UK It's pretty clear they're getting ready to pull the plug on the whole Ukraine thing, and pivoting to Taiwan, maybe with some monkeypox thrown in the mix.

Agreed. I totally get the perspective that if you have something valuable, you shouldn't give it away for free. And of course, bootleg companies need to recoup their outlays for this sort of thing. But that market vanished with the advent of the digital age. I just don't understand this appeal of sitting on something that probably only a few hundred hardcore fans would be interested in hearing anyway. At least an antique collector can show pictures of the physical object to the world. What utility comes from holding onto a 50 year old tape? This I don't get.

That's unfortunate.

This is shaping up to be a very exciting release.

Some kick-ass Mark IV: