I had to think a lot about this.

I'd have thought that coming from a background of discrimination would make you want to stop discrimination going on in other facets of life.

Hmm. No. Honestly comparing some of the shit I've gone through to animal discrimination is, frankly, a little insulting. And I'm also busy trying to stop the discrimination going on in the facets of my life.

I haven't chased anyone around with animal rights links though.

Dude. DUDE. Yes, you have. It's the whole reason anyone here is ticked off in the first place.

This is the first time I've heard this. Why do you think that?

It's easy for rich, wealthy White people to abide by Veganism. Minorities that are poor and have crappy access to food, have a hardy time becoming Vegans. But - and this brings up that "accusatory" thing I was talking about - by your definition, those people are shitstains for not doing a better job not eating chicken and stuff. You have to be in a position of privilege to be vegan. It's expensive as fuck and hard to keep up when you've got $20 to eat this week and the closest Sprouts or whatever is 30 miles away.

Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?

Again, this is what I'm talking about. It's passive aggressive as hell. Stahp.

I don't understand the connection.

I'm saying that when you go day in and day out wondering why don't people care about this as much as me?, you start equating that to them not caring about your cause whatsoever. Then you start to look at them negatively, then you get resentful and angry because they don't care as passionately about the same things as you do. And it's bad, not every White person is a racist sack of shit, not every non-Vegan is a cold-blooded reverse-Hannibal out to murder all the chickens in the world.

Don't have much else to say.

I'm not sure "Rusty" would have helped much. Unless it was

  T. Rusty Weiner

Ten shares, no comments? Where's the thoughtful web?

Talking points:

· A statement like "taxes on entrepreneurs and investors are already historically low" is too fuzzy to fact-check. Anyone who advertises housecleaning online is an entrepreneuer. Anyone with a 401(k) is an investor.

· The infographic states that "Between 1997 and 2008 ... All [income] growth went to the richest 10%." Was anyone here making more in 2008 than 1997, and yet not in the richest 10%? One example would disprove this absurd claim. The caption is less confident and less clear, claiming merely that "almost all of the income gains have gone to the richest Americans."

· The more disturbing claim in the infographic is that "Between 1997 and 2008 ... Income for the bottom 90% declined." This is apparently illustrated by the thin blue stripe at the bottom of the chart, which actually looks pretty flat during the named range.

The citation gives the source for the data, a spreadsheet with 54 sheets. The eighth sheet, labeled Table A4, appears to contain the data about the bottom 90%.

It looks like that the bottom 90% of household income (adjusted for inflation) has indeed been pretty flat since the early '70s. The value in 1997 was $31,056, and in 2008 it was $30,981, a change of -0.24%, validating the infographic claim. How concerned should we be?

Some thoughts to consider:

1) The people in the bottom 90% in 1997 are not all the same people in the bottom 90% in 2008. Some in the top 10% dropped out, some in the bottom 90% moved up.

2) The population is growing. Kids and immigrants tend to have lower incomes than older, established residents. Even if not a single person's income drops with the arrival of a new worker, the average can drop. It is (mathematically) possible that everyone's income is rising, but the average stays the same because of growth in the low-end population.

3) Divorce rates have increased since the fastest growth of average income before the mid-60s. If one household separates into two, the average household income can drop even if everyone's individual income increases.

The big idea of the article is fatally flawed as well. Consumer spending drives the economy, fine. But the rich guy isn't doing his fair share to stimulate because he only bought three cars and a plane? What we need is an institution to take his money and distribute it to 9,000 families so they can buy 3,000 cars instead of just three.

Mr. Blodget, I have good news for you. We already have that institution, and it is called a bank.

No, that's no good. The problem with the bank is that the millions in wealth "either sits and earns interest or gets invested in companies" ... am I reading this correctly? We want customers to buy cars. Most of them do so on credit, with money from a bank. The bank requires depositors, right? If we want to stimulate consumer activity, putting those millions in the bank seems like a pretty good technique. Or investing in companies. That doesn't count as supporting the creation of jobs because ... ?

Well Broken Bells is actually a collaboration between James Mercer and Danger Mouse, so they don't have too much music out other then that one *Broken Bells* album and a EP. But if you like the vocals, then I recommend listening to Flake Music and The Shins. Flake Music pretty much what James Mercer was before he started The Shins, so they sound pretty similar, but I like Flake Music a bit more for some reason. Here is the entire Flake Music album *When You Land Here, It's Time to Return* which is really good. And then my favorite Shins song is Caring is Creepy. On the other hand, if you like the production of Broken Bells, then literally anything Danger Mouse produces is great. People who don't know who Danger Mouse is will be very surprised at how much influence he has had on popular works. But as for a recommendation, I'm not sure what I would suggest since Danger Mouse is kinda all over the place. I guess you could listen to my favorite album he produced which is *Demon Days* by Gorillaz, but that's not entirely him. Just go look at his wiki page and go from there since he has done so much haha.

That was fun:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Edit: And just to scratch an itch, I thought I'd throw in a Frank Stella inspired version:

x.

Donny Hathaway's Jealous Guy is great, never heard it before, thanks. I think Frankie Miller has an even better version Jealous Guy.

I have about a hundred covers I like but I think I'll just post some more great beatles covers.

It almost seem obligatory for every soul artist to cover a beatles song, here's a few of the better ones.

Wilson Pickett Hey Jude. I don't really like wilson much, but I think this is a pretty good cover.

Aretha Franklin - Eleanor Rigby. I think the studio version is even better, but the video is more entertaining to watch then an album cover.

Al Green I Wanna Hold Your Hand. Short and sweet.

I got a bunch of reggae covers of the beatles but I don't really feel like weeding em out right now, lots are good. Trojan Records put out a two or three reggae beatles albums that have some gems, and plenty of non-Trojan reggae covers. In the reggae vibe but from a rasta punk band I always like the Bad Brains Day Tripper, it's mashed up with the Stones She Comes in Rainbows.

I like to play covers of songs daughter loves on the theory that it will help her distinguish the similarities and differences between things. She loves the beatles and Blackbird has always been a song she enjoys. It was fun to see her light up with delight and sing along to both these versions.

Roslyn Sweet & The Paragons

Billy Preston

I haven't even dipped my toe into rock or country beatles covers, but I think I've done enough.