Alexander

A tip: unless you are going into the sciences or economics/finance, don't do it. Finding a job afterward is hard -- you probably won't be teaching anybody at the college level. Guy It's English, and I know. That's part of the reason I'm not doing it. The thing is that I pursued an MA in English a decade ago, and many of my former classmates are now PhDs. It makes me feel like a fuck up, since I know that I'm just as capable as these people. I dropped out for personal reasons (health reasons, really), and I reget it now. But I know that it's very hard to make a go of a career in academia, especially in a discipline like English. My wife is a college administrator, and she's always telling me about how the English Department at her school pretty much only employes adjuncts.

There's a crowd of gamers camped out near the entrance to the Best Buy at Crossgates Mall here in Guilderland, NY. They've been living out of tents since Tuesday. When went to the mall the other day to buy a pair of jeans, I shouted (as I passed), "I hope it's worth it!"

I recall reading an excellent book when I was in college called "Holy Anorexia" (by Rudolph Bell). It argues that Anorexia Nervosa (a condition, incidentally, that was first described by Queen Victoria's Royal Surgeon, Sir William Withey Gull, who has been accused of being Jack the Ripper in some accounts) is behind the behavior of many female saints and martyrs who believed that "mortification of the flesh" was necessary to attain God's favor. Many of these saints (including Catherine of Seina) fasted excessively. Their desire to attain perfect holiness mirrors the modern obsession with a perfect body.

I'm in the same boat. I'm about to turn 36 next month and I'm still trying to figure things out. Teaching is certainly the closest thing to a life's work that I've encountered, but I don't know if I have it in me to teach for thirty years. There are too many things that I don't like about teaching (the discipline, grading papers, planning lessons, unhelpful or even malicous administrators). I do enjoy sharing knowledge and ideas with young people, but I don't know if that's enough to make up for all the minuses of the profession. At the moment, I'm still substitute teaching (my one real teaching gig fell through last winter) and while I like it better than having my own classroom (no grading, no planning, no day to day discipline), it doesn't pay enough and the work's not regular enough. I'm also tutoring, but I've only been able to get one or two days of work a week, so it doesn't amount to much. What I'd really like to do is go back to school and earn my PhD so I can teach at the college level. I know that college professors have their own problems, but I have a feeling that teaching people who are PAYING to attend school is easier than teaching people who are compelled to go by law. The problem is that we're still paying for my Master's degree, so there's no way my wife is going to float me for another decade or so while I pursue another degree that may or may not result in gainful employment. Other things I'd love to do include: Writing professionally - I've been writing for most of my life, and some of my stuff's not too bad. I've tried my hand at most forms and have been working on and off (mostly off) on a novel for the better part of a decade. It's probably the best thing I've written. The first chapter is posted on my MySpace page, if anyone is interested. Bear Dancing: Chapter One Owning a record store - I know this is a very impractical dream, but I've always wanted to have my own record store. I had a taste of it when I managed the music department at B&N, but of course I got into trouble because I wanted to do things *my* way instead of the way they wanted it done. And I went ahead and did it my way, subsequently losing my job in the process. I know that between the internet and big box stores, indie record stores are becoming extinct. I'd lose my shirt and I couldn't get up the capital to start such a venture anyway. Doing comedy (stand-up or improv) - I used to do both when I was in college and got pretty good at it, if I do say so myself. I came *this* close to landing a writing job on Saturday Night Live circa 1990, so I know I'm not the only person who thought so (they even used one of my skits...without crediting me or paying me). Recently, I was involved with a TV show that was pitched to MTV. It was a sketch comedy show, and MTV seemed really interested. Then they tested the pilot, and it flopped (I should state at this point that I had nothing to do with the pilot. I was supposed to sign on as a writer IF the show got picked up). As far as I know, the producer is trying to shop the pilot to other networks, and something may still come of it. I'm not holding my breath. I'm not a bad stand-up comic. I have great timing (I love the fact that I can "play" the audience with a pause or a look. It's a great feeling, having people laugh EXACTLY when you want them to laugh). I do good impressions (I do Bush, Clinton, Kermit the Frog, Cartman, Bugs Bunny, Ray Charles, Woody Allen...again, it's a great feeling to do an impression and have people recognize what you're trying to do). I come up with decent material. I have my faults too, btw. Some of my humor is TOO outrageous and goes too far. Early in Bush's first term (shortly after 9/11) I had an idea for a series of skits that were inspired by my then-toddler daughter. I thought it would be funny to portray Bush as a toddler; have him sitting on the floor watching Teletubbies on TV, stuff like that. In one skit, Cheney would be feeding him while Bush sits in a high chair: CHENEY: Open wide Mr. President! Come on! Here comes the plane! Into the World Trade Center! You can see where this would run into trouble. So yeah, I know where you're coming from. If we could afford it, sometimes I think I'd be happiest being a house-husband. I do a fair portion of the cooking, almost all of the cleaning and all of the grocery shopping. I could get behind doing that full time...

Love the magazine title, btw. Now someone needs to tell the Moro-Islamic Liberation Front that they need to change their name...

I've written a whole series of skits called "668: Neighbor of the Beast." It involves an urban apartment dweller who lives next door to hell. Satan (his neighbor) is all done up in red makeup complete with horns and a cape. He drops by to borrow sugar, stuff like that. He's a nice guy. In one skit, the main character (Dave) is passing 668. He hears moaning and wailing. He knocks on the door. Satan answers (behind him we see an ordinary apartment, nothing hellish about it at all). SATAN: Oh, hi, Dave. How's it going? DAVE: Not too bad. Look, Satan, I hate to bug you, but it's a little late for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Do you think you could turn it down a couple of notches? SATAN: Hey, no problem. My bad. We were just going to knock off for the night anyway. Sorry for the disturbence. DAVE: It's okay. Ordinarily it wouldn't bother me, but I have an early meeting tomorrow. SATAN: Sure thing. Hey, I'm in charge of the lobby Christmas tree this year. Think you could kick in a couple of bucks? DAVE (reaching for his wallet): Sure. Here ya go. SATAN: Thanks. Let me write you a receipt. DAVE: Don't worry about it. I trust you. (both laugh) Anyway, have a good night, Satan. My best to all of the damned. SATAN: Night, Dave. Good luck with that meeting tomorrow. DAVE: Thanks. (to himself after the door closes) What a nice guy.

I had this as an import CD and later picked up the "Seven Steps" box. This is a wonderful set. No, Rivers is not Trane, Coleman, or Shorter, but he doesn't have to be.

I remember thinking that Palance had died shortly after completing his role in "Batman" (1989). For years, I thought that "Batman" had been his last role, and was surprised to find out otherwise (I still don't know where I got the impression that he was dead). Although many people of my generation primarily know him as the host of "Believe It or Not," he was the last of the Hollywood tough-guys. He will be missed. For real, this time...

K-Fed needs to team up with Tom Arnold...

So, they want to use human and cow DNA to create...what? We already have Nebraskans.

Guess his album is REALLY bad...

it's amazing how effective the car chase in "Bullitt" is (as amazing as the one in "The French Connection" is, I have to say that "Bullitt" has the edge). Car chase scenes have become obligitory in American film. There was a period (in the mid-80s, I'd say) when there were so many car chases in films that it began to seem like movies were just an excuse to smash up as many cars as possible. There have been entire TV shows built around car chases ("Miami Vice," "The Dukes of Hazzard"). There have been three "Fast and the Furious" films, which are nothing but one long car chase. We are inundated with them. And yet the car chase in "Bullitt" STILL keeps viewers at the edge of their seats. It's white knuckle all the way in a way car chases haven't been - well - since "Bullitt!" And I LOVE the bit where he tries to stop at 80 MPH. In most films, no matter how fast the car is going, the hero always screetches to a dead stop. Here, McQueen hits the brake and flies all over the road. That's the real thing! I've read that McQueen did his own stunt driving for most of the scene. It was only after his THIRD crash of the day that he finally agreed to let a professional driver take the wheel. I should also mention that Steve McQueen is one of my favorite leading men. He had a charisma that's hard to explain (unlike Cary Grant, Sean Connery, or George Clooney who simply OOZE charm). I guess its because McQueen had a "regular guy" quality to him. You have the feeling that McQueen's character could be anybody, and that allows you to identify with him. He didn't keep his audience at a distance. Or maybe it was because he was SO fucking cool!

As some of you no doubt recall, we had a similar thing on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. a couple of years ago. It's certainly no fun. I hope all of our European posters are all right and that the lights come on soon for those still in the dark!

So I saw it today. Oh. My. GOD! That was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. "The Running of the Jew!" "Watch out for his horns!" "Do not try to shrink me, Gypsy..." "We brought with us a vial of gypsy tears to protect us from AIDS." "My moustache still tastes of your testes!" "So the man who tried to put a rubber fist up my anus was a homosexual?" So rude. So crude. SO socially unacceptable. I couldn't breathe, I was laughing so hard. Wait till you see the pictures of his family! Or the bag of fecal matter he brings to a dinner party! It's as if Andy Kaufman and Johnny Knoxville fathered a child with Ashton Kutcher. It's THAT disgustingly funny! Borat Sagdiyev: This is Natalya. [He kisses her passionately] Borat Sagdiyev: She is my sister. She is number-four prostitute in whole of Kazakhstan. [she holds up a trophy and smiles] Borat Sagdiyev: Niiice! Is great success!

At any point in time, there is only one owner for the used cd. The artist got paid for it. Besides which, if we are counting owners, what happens when a couple buys a CD together (he pays half, she pays half)? Or if eighteen people each contribute one dollar to buy a CD and then make an agreement that each person gets the CD for one day at a time, making a complete circle every eighteen days? We have CDs with between two and EIGHTEEN owners! Yet the artist was only compensated one time! For shame! We should really crack down on mulitple ownership. "Sorry, kids. You each have to buy a copy, otherwise you can't listen..."

At any point in time, there is only one owner for the used cd. The artist got paid for it. ONCE, not twice. And yet here we are with two owners.

Exactly, but... No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line. Guy BUT there are now two copies and the originators were paid for only one. And when a CD is sold used, it has two owners while the originators were only paid by one of the owners. Two owners, one price. It's the same either way.

Because the law currently reads that way. As I noted elsewhere, there have been artists and producers who have sought to end the trade in used CDs (Garth Brooks for one). If the Supreme Court handed down a decision that made the buying and selling of used CDs a crime, would you "go gentle into that good night", or would you "rage, rage againt the dying of the light?" A thing being against the law doesn't make it wrong, and a thing being legal doensn't make it right. Abortion used to be illegal in the United States. Aparthied used to be legal in South Africa. So before 1970, Abortion was wrong and before 1994 Aparthied was okay? People should not walk where paths are laid. Paths should be laid where people walk.

Exactly, but... No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line. Guy Exactly!

Undoubtedly more failures to come. Chuck, how would you feel if I came upon a used copy of a Nessa CD? Would you mind if I bought it? Doesn't doing so deprive you of some money?

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the second person (the one who *might* have bought new) decide not to buy the album at all? Or to look around and find another used copy? Or go home and ask a friend to make him a copy? Just because the used copy isn't available at that moment doesn't guarantee that a new sale is in the offing.

Who the hell started the idiot festival? Chuck, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and the music you've helped to produce. Don't blow it by acting like a jackass. Seriously, I understand your take on this, since this is your bread and butter. You've been working "behind the scenes" for a long time, and that informs your perspective. My perspective is that of the music consumer. And as a consumer, who doesn't see ANY negative effects of either buying used or making burns, my point of view is bound to differ from yours. I'm not going to hurl insults at you just because we disagree, so please show me the same respect.

Another thought: Home taping has been going on for decades. I used to make tape copies of my parent's LPs to listen to on my Walkman when I went to summer camp. Later, when I went to college, I made tape copies of their LPs to take with me. Still later on, when I bought a CD player, I bought CD copies of most - if not all - of those albums. When I was in high school, my friends and I make copies of our tapes for one another. Again, I regarded the tapes as a "temporary fix." It allowed me to get into an album I didn't have the money to buy for myself. When I got older, and I got some cash, I "upgraded" by purchasing the tapes I had copies of from my friends. Later on, when I got a CD burner, my friends and I continued our practice of making copies for one another. Now, the whole time I was making tapes from my parents' LPs and my friends casettes, nobody argued about the ethics of such a practice. I was generally understood that, yes, this was technically illegal but that the end product of home taping would never actually replace an LP or a commerical tape. It was an *inferior* product, only to be endured as long as one didn't have the scratch to buy the "real thing." For the most part, that's exactly the case with CD burns. I regard them as inferior. Yes, the sound quality is generally undiminished (unlike the practice of making tape copies, which reduces the sound quality each time a copy is made) and yes, I can go online and get the cover art. But I know that CD-Rs don't last forever. They degrade at a much faster rate than real CDs (I've never had a commercial CD crap out on me, but I've had to burn new copies of CD-Rs once they start sounding like a bowl of Rice Krispies). I also want to have lyrics and liner notes, which I can only get by buying the real thing. Not only have I purchased commerical copies of CDs I've gotten off of friends as burns, I've even bought commercial CDs of album's I've PURCHASED on iTunes because I liked them so much that I wanted a "real" copy. That's right, I've PAID for the same album TWICE. I've done this more times than I care to count, but let me try: Speakerboxxx/The Love Below (OutKast), Elephant (the White Stripes), The Soul Sessions (Joss Stone), Stone Love (Angie Stone), Beautifully Human (Jill Scott), The River in Reverse (Elvis Costello)...that's all I can think of right now. But right there, that's SIX albums I've bought twice: Once in digital form, and again as a "real" CD. As for the rest of my burns, a good number are legit copies bought off of iTunes and eMusic. The rest (less than ten?) were burned off of friends. So, ironically, I'm going a LONG way to defend a practice I don't engage in all that often. Doesn't make any difference to me. If I had only done it once, I'd still defend it because I don't think it's all that bad in the grand scheme of things.

The artist was only paid once on the used CD sale as well. This is what is so frustrating. You seem to think that the artist is bilked out of $18 in the case of the burn, but not in the case of the used sale. It's crazy. Two people walk into a record store. Both buy a copy of the same album new. Both pay full price. The artist gets his cut of both sales. Two people walk into a record store. One buys a new copy of an album and pays full price. The other buys a used copy of the same album. The artist gets compensated on the first sale only. (I know, I know. He was compensated on the original sale of the used CD). Two people walk into a record store. One buys a new copy of an album and pays full price. The other says, "My best friend has a copy of that album. I'll go burn a copy of his CD." The artist is only compensated on the one sale. He WAS, however, compensated when customer #2's best friend bought the album from which he makes his copy. I still fail to see the difference.

But now your friend is getting an illegal copy of that music, for which the artists etc received no compensation. Your original copy is fine and legitimate. Don't you get that? From the artist's perspective, how is this different from a used CD sale? Guy My point exactly, thank you. In both cases, the artist was compensated once, when the original copy was sold new. In both cases, the music is passed on to another listener without compensation to the artist (or other copyright holders). If you object to burning on ethical grounds, you must also object to the buying/selling of used CDs. I disagree. In the case of burning a cd, you have created a new copy of that music for which the artist/producer etc has never been paid what's due. 2 copies of the music, artist paid once. There is a difference between that and the used cd, which DID pay whatever money was due. 1 copy of music, artist paid once. Again, the end result is identical: Two owners, artist paid once. In the case of the used CD, it's only one owner at a time. In the case of the burn, you have two owners at the same time. How does the first instance make the artist any richer?