hahahah oh, liars.

woo

http://wonkette.com/413918/america-ruined-by-personal-essays

hahaha. oh dave eggers and ira glass. i love thee.

the weight

what is the weight? the weight is not the best song ever written, not by a mile. it probably isnt even the band's best song. what is? i dunno. everybody says 'like a rolling stone' is tops. having had the privelage of hearing dylan do it live i can probably agree. but yeah. the weight. where to start. where to end. i dunno im tired so ill maybe just end it with a video and this short statement of fact.

there is nothing better than going to a concert, and hearing whoever is playing cover 'the weight,' especially when you dont expect it. its never shite.

They say this version, from the last waltz (concert film, filmed by scorcese early in his career) is the best recording. i mean yeah its got the staple singers and is all sad and what not cause its got all thats associated with this being the band's last concert. but, the song is still so alive!

wendell

wendell berry. why im majoring in what im majoring in, and more importantly, why i want to do community and rural development for a career probably is 80% attributed to berry. i know ive said it before, but ill say it again. read his 'idea of a local economy' itll rock your world. and get you ready for pt 2 of 'steady state,' whenever i get around to writing it.

THE PEACE OF WILD THINGS

When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.

— Wendell Berry

november blue

i love the avett brothers. yeah ok theyre on a major label now. but they put out like 8 of the most incredible albums ever when they were on ramseur, which as ive stated multiple times in the past and i will now state again, is the best record label of all time. you may be thinking to yourself that- hrmm, he seems to make this claim often, but replaces 'ramseur' with labels such as 'chess' 'creation' 'factory' 'stax' and who knows what all else. i confess, i do that from time to time. it cant be helped.

anyway. i love the way their narratives carry over from album to album.

for instance, the story of november blue

this one came first, its called 'november blue'

Then a few years later came 'Denouncing november blue'

The thing about an avett brothers show, is that there are a few things. 1) they are incredible. 2) they are too short.

today

painter yesterday, radiohead a few days ago. today ill go for something entirely different.

a few weeks ago somebody asked me to explain to the idea of a steady-state economy to them, i keep forgetting to do that. since he regularly reads here, hell probably in luck. and itll save us all a really longwinded 30 minute soliloquy, which is really ace. those are rarely ever any good. especially mine. tend to end in disgust with shaking of the head and waving of the arms.

you should also be aware that, since this is the economic system that I favor, were going to have some bias. ill make it a point to talk about criticisms, because there certainly are several.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

here goes nothing. im going to take this picture out as far as it goes-ill be making quite a few general statements about the world at large as it is today, and probably state some basic economic assumptions that may insult your intelligence. might put some pictures in. hey, thatll be nice of me.

------

before i go any further i want to mention that developed/westernized countries are of course those with high gdp's, low inflation/good money supply, generally around 5% or lower unemployment, and those with high human development indicators. basically your G20 nations.

------

the economic doctrine adhered to today by the vast majority of developed/westernized countries is usually referred to as mainstream economics, though you probably never hear that term. terms like 'socialism' and 'libertarianism' (right/left, republican, democrat) are at the core political descriptors used by politicians and certainly politicized economists (cough, paul krugman). most economists steer clear of partisan bickering and call it like it is. (myself not really being one of them, guilty...)

Let me define mainstream economics. essentially, its is a 50/50 split between your keynesian economics and the neoclassical style of economics. most countries practice a keynesian macroeconomic policy and neoclassical microeconomic policy.

macroeconomics deals with the economy on the whole, thats your big picture stuff, regulating the money supply (the fed setting interest rates), and most public sector/government polices. Basically it deals with questions of growth, ie. if growth is lacking, how do we create it, etc.

Microeconomics deals with the behavior of the individual in response to scarce resources, we kind of think about this within the supply/demand framework. Its essentially an individual's behavior to changes in the economy they are a part of.

basically.

Heres the key takeaway from all that-the vast majority of western/developed countries (particularly those ones that are stable), well they all utilize the same economic system. whether they be the so called socialized EU, the more command-like Asian countries, or us who, well... our system is incredibly convoluted and so diverse that nobody can agree on what hat it actually wears. <-this is basically a good thing. But the basic assumption of all these countries is that a 5% annual growth is what is sustainable and desirable.

----------

So lets put this in the context of 2008. Real steep recession, hasnt bottomed out yet, who knows when it will, or even if it will. you have to take action as a government to address the problem. hypothetically, if youre Japan you might cut interest rates, to promote consumer spending. if youre the usa you may invest in infrastructure, to temporarily replace private investment in capital. if youre the EU you may go about a program of job creation. Again this is hypothetical, in reality the response by countries was to utilize some degree of these three approaches, and more. No matter which approach taken the long run goal remained the same for each country. A return to a 5% level of growth in the economy. It may appear that countries are headed in opposite directions (socialism, liberalism, etc), but thats not really the case.

This may explain it better-Youre in columbia, trying to get to clemson.

--You can take I26-I385-I85. this has the highest speed, but longer mileage. so theres a tradeoff there. you may feel like youre getting there faster, but you really arent.

--You can take I26-Pelzer cutoff-I85, this has both high speed, but includes a short cut which saves distance, but forces a lower speed. Probably gets you to clemson faster than just taking interstates.

--You can go through Newberry-Greenwood-Anderson-Clemson, taking US76 and other back routes. This might take longer, but save a load on gas cause youre steady at 55mph the whole way.

Either way you go, youre still getting to clemson, and probably within a 30minute time frame. many of the routes even follow the same roads. the path you take is not really that different from another. anyway you go will have associated costs/benefits. but more importantly, you left from columbia and ended in clemson.

-----------

pretend now that that the routes weve discussed are the ways to achieve 5% growth. heres the thing though, you really havent asked yourself a pretty central question. Do i really need to have 5%growth/be in clemson.

-heres where im abandoning this analogy, of course we have to be in clemson, were students,etc etc.

but we dont need 5% growth. In fact, we dont really need growth at all.

theres actually a really strong case to be made that, well, we dont need growth. ok yeah, in a way thats malthusian, but let me explain.

i gotta take a break though. pt 2 tomorrow.

in the meantime, ill do you another solid and elevate the bowerbirds, though im sure i have already.

africa i love you

and im gonna let you finish but beyonce had one of the best videos of ALL TIME

oh hey kanye.

quick thing. book im reading for english, oranges are not the only fruit. pretty lousy, dont like it much, but i liked this line. if i can be bothered to find it. ok there it is:

''As it was she got upset and blamed me for her headache. This was very like Sir Joshua Reynolds, who complained that Turner always gave him a headache.''

i laughed. reynolds, the portrait artist for the elite; and turner, the crazy drunk loner whose paintings i cannot even describe, because they are that great. i wish i could. i should be able to at least come up with one word cause i stalked him in london between the tate and national gallery/my whole life. but i really cant, not one word. im beginning to think that all ive ever done in london is go to galleries and dubstep clubs. i dont think thats true. ive been to one dubstep club and only the main galleries. stands out i guess. anyway. i tend to just stare at them on the wall like a mo-ron. why? what else are you supposed to do? its canvas and oil on a wall. not like theres anything else i can do. i suppose you could fall into like that woman did last month to the picasso. or steal it. id feel right terrible about doing both.

text is pretty cool too. ''Sir Joshua Reynolds.'' all very pomp and circumstance, here comes the bride, you get the point. ''Turner.'' the man with three first names but none show up here. shame shame shame. no his name isnt shame shame shame turner, though when he went mad and locked himself in his flat he himself might have thought so. may have even said it out load, who knows. i digress. ''Turner.'' cuts it off right there. takes him out of the position of authority. sir joshua reynolds doesnt like him. well he must be right, hes a sir. well history proved you wrong biatch. cause aint nobody looking at reynolds anymore. well they do cause hes still like one of the best british painters ever, so they say. i dont say though.

weird though cause i just read that reynolds let turner into the royal academy, then reynolds died like 5 years later. so he never really saw any of turners wild paintings, and presumably those are the ones that would give him a headache...

...might be that what we have here is a case of fabricat'n! doesnt really change much. the book still sucks and turner is still awesome.

Rain, steam and speed 1844.

Snow Storm-Steam Boat off a Harbour's Mouth 1842

The fighting Temeraire tugged to her last berth to be broken up, 1839

OH SHit theres the benjamin's angel of history again.....

and ill leave off the other big one, that being the one of the wrecked slave ship with all the people being eaten by sharks, cause quite frankly, it scares me too much. (but id put it up here sooner than id put on a reynolds. )

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/world/asia/22civilian.html?hpw