May 19, 2015
Christopher and Yvonne
That's Yvonne Prinz, whose forthcoming book If You're Lucky I'm in the middle of reading and it's great.
If you want King Dork Approximately, I hear they still have some copies left.
Support the Arts, by which I mean: Me and My Things
I came across this drawing on the internet somewhere and saved it and unfortunately I can no longer find who drew it (if you did draw it and you notice this let me know so I can credit you. I dig it.)
Anyway, as you can see and as you may have heard, the MTX is doing a couple weekends' worth of shows with the Queers and Screeching Weasel. Some have described it as "the bill of the century" and though it's pretty early in the century to judge, sure why not? The Bill of the Century, ladies and gentlemen. Also, I've heard a bit of the new SW album (Baby Fat Act 1) and it's stunning. We've got some things in the works too that you might get a bit of a glimpse of and of course the Queers are always great. So, what I'm saying is, it should be a pretty good time. Tickets are going fast but they're still available for all shows as far as I know, and I've included ticket links to those listings.
Also I'm doing the Bay Area Bookfest on Saturday June 6th, and by doing I mean I will be there at 2:30 PM trying to draw attention to myself and my book among a whole lot of other authors trying to do the same thing with themselves and their books. And if you're in Sacramento on June 19, you might want to see us play an outdoor punk rock festival type show.
More stuff may be added, you never know, but as it stands this is where things stand.
Saturday, June 6
Bay Area Bookfest, Downtown Berkeley. 2:30 PM
Not yet sure exactly what I'll be doing or where precisely I will be doing it but the Festival is in the downtown area around the BART station and I have a half hour. I figure I'll present my book in that way I have, with songs and self-deprecating anecdotes.
Friday, June 19
The MTX is playing at the Sacramento Concerts in the Park event, along with the Four Eyes, The Enlows, Rebel Punk, and DJ Whores. Cesar Chavez Plaza, Sacramento, CA, 5PM - 9PM.
If you come, we will rock you.
Friday, July 24
Screeching Weasel, Queers, MTX at the Howard Theater, 620 T Street, NW (at T & 7th), Washington DC. 7:30 PM. Buy tickets here.
Saturday, July 25
Screeching Weasel, Queers, MTX at Webster Hall, 125 East 11th Street, NY, NY. 7 PM. Tickets here.
Sunday, July 26
Screeching Weasel, Queers, MTX at The Royale, 279 Tremont Street, Boston MA. 6PM. Tickets here
Friday, August 7
Screeching Weasel, Queers, MTX at Regency Ballroom, 1300 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA. 6:30 PM. Tickets here.
Saturday, August 8
Screeching Weasel, Queers, MTX at The Observatory, 3503 South Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA. 6:30 PM. Tickets here.
Sunday, August 9
Screeching Weasel, Queers, MTX at The Observatory North Park, 2891 University Avenue, San Diego CA. 6:30 PM. Tickets here.
So there you have it. As I said, there may be a few things to add here and there, and if there are I will add them so watch this space.
One of Life's Little Lessons, Happening Still
My agent and friend Steve Malk texted me this photo alerting me to the headline:
My first thought, being the paranoid narcissist that I am, was the extremely unlikely and rather alarming one that Barbara Ehrenreich had written an article about my own obsolescence, somehow, for some reason. In fact, of course it's nothing to do with me: it's about robots taking everyone's jobs. But after a little thought I realized what he was getting at, which is that one of my old songs, "The Dustbin of History," has the line "welcome to obsolescence." Small world, or something.
May 15, 2015
A One Man Punk Rock Tin Pan Alley to Nowhere
Looking through old lyrics notebooks and noticing how much time and effort I had to have put into trying to be a one man punk rock tin pan alley to nowhere in the 90s, all these closely-written pages of intricate, internally-rhymed, love lorn songs and bits of what could have turned into songs most of which were never likely to be heard by anyone and have by now effectively just disappeared, all that's left of them being the scribbles. Like I was operating a kind of delusional self-staffed and -attended Cole Porter Fantasy Camp or something, and sometimes bits of it that only hinted at the extent of the total's insanity would find their way on to records, and people would say things like "oh that's [too] clever". So weird, because I don't remember having spent all that much time doing that when obviously I did, and of course kind of embarrassing like most found old writing. "You've come a long way baby, and it shows, and heaven knows you've gone through rough terrain; you may have changed your tune but it's too soon to ascertain..." Endlessly.
May 11, 2015
The Cold Hard Facts of Life
Like, I imagine, a lot of writers/musicians/artists I often get messages from very nice people interested in helping me out, asking how best to go about it. For any writer, the answer is going to be: go to a store (in meat space or on line-- doesn't matter which) and spend actual money on a new (not used) book. There's nothing wrong with not doing that, but if you really do want to help the author, and influence whether or not more books by that author will see the light of day, helping the book is the way to do it, and buying the book is the way to do that. If you're really keen, you can encourage others to do the same. Go ahead then, philauthropists, show me what you got.
May 09, 2015
How literary is to literary?
Word on the street is my songwriting is "too literary." (Or, as in the title, "to literary" as the most recent one spelt it.) At least I've been seeing this pop up on the internet here and there all of a sudden. First I heard it was in Larry's offhand response to Last Will's generously hyperbolic reference to me as a "HOF quality songwriter", a week or so ago, but now it's being said elsewhere. The long arm of Livermore? Some other "meme"? Anyway, I wouldn't disagree, necessarily, nor agree either, and in fact if someone has to be too literary it might as well be me. But I thought it worthy of mention, in my capacity as a narcissist.
Shoot Out the Lights
They've been making an effort to improve the traffic light system in my neck of the woods (North Oakland/Temescal.) And by "improve" I mean, gradually making it more and more complicated. They keep adding new lights and varying the pattern in which the various signals and combinations of signals are deployed, presumably with the goal of providing in an ordered sequence an unobstructed and uncontested free route for every conceivable traffic action, vehicular and pedestrian. And while these specific permissions protocols cycle through, one by one (though in no necessarily predictable order), all other activity must cease.
For pedestrians, this means waiting at the corner to cross the street for longer and longer periods. There's a button to push, and it lights up to indicate that it knows you have pushed it, but it clearly has no other effect than lighting up. The traffic lights go through their various combinations of flashing, like the computer banks in Adam West's Bat Cave, the cars creep by, each waiting for its turn, four versions of left turn, four versions of right turn, everything else halting while each of the Byzantine variations gets its chance; and the don't walk guy on the display is a solid red for... ages and ages. A taunting electronic voice says "wait" over and over. The chirping bird sound, intended I have to assume to let blind people know when it's safe to cross -- it always makes me wonder what mayhem might be caused by a mischievous or merely oblivious real life bird -- well, it never seems to chirp. It is all done, I'm sure, in the spirit of efficiency and safety.
But here's what happens in the real world. People on their way to the BART station worry about missing their train, figure the system is broken or simply get tired of waiting, throw up their hands, and cross against the light. Others see them doing this and run across themselves. And there is now an unofficial pedestrian folk culture of ignoring the lights entirely. They just cross and hope for the best, shaking their heads at the suckers who are still waiting, pushing and pushing the placebo-like walk button.
And the more complicated the system, the more routines and variations they add, the more frequently it all seems to break down mechanically or electronically. This situation is indicated by all lights flashing red. Then it's just a free for all, where cars and pedestrians alike put their heads down and zoom across hoping not to get hit by a bus. Because there is no other choice.
Usually they fix these physical breakdowns within a day, but there was one time recently when for whatever reason they didn't. Instead they put up makeshift simple four way stop signs, on poles set in temporary portable concrete foundations.
And this was to miraculous effect. Pedestrians and drivers had to use their judgement instead of blindly following a seeming irrational system of brain dead, needlessly complex permissions and prohibitions. And I have no doubt that everyone, drivers and pedestrians, got through the intersection more quickly, more efficiently, and with less aggravation and anxiety than we all have when the system "works." (And for what it's worth, though it's not a good "sample" and is just from personal observation, there were no accidents that I ever saw during this period; on the other hand, crashes are pretty frequent when all systems are go.) When it happens again, I'll consider myself lucky, as crossing the street will have become, however briefly, a less vexing experience. You know, it's the little things.
So of course, I'm going to draw a cutesy moral here. The more complicated and restrictive the rules, the more difficult they will be to maintain and enforce, the less people tend to respect them, and the less likely they are to follow them in the end. And sometimes simple, easily understood systems that leave room for judgement are better. You could apply this to all sorts of things, but hey, what about: taxes? Shoot out the lights.
April 28, 2015
Give 'em the damn award.
So PEN is going to give a "freedom of expression courage award" to Charlie Hebdo, to be accepted by one of the few CH staff left alive. Six writers, including the novelists Peter Carey and Francine Prose, have withdrawn from the event in protest, each offering "I support free speech but..." objections.
When I heard about it yesterday I face-posted this with a link:
Awards are dumb, but to oppose the "assassin's veto" only for things you like or approve of is no opposition to it at all, and it's a curious view for a writer to take.Salman Rushdie, who has obvious standing from which to comment on this matter, put it more strongly:
The award will be given. PEN is holding firm. Just 6 pussies. Six Authors in Search of a bit of Character.He added: "I hope nobody comes after them."
Now Francine Prose has written an essay fleshing out her reasons for withdrawing. She's a great writer (whom I admire very much) and her argument is rhetorically forceful, but it hasn't managed to sway me, and my initial response still stands: this "I support free speech but..." posture is quite a curious attitude for a writer, of all people, to take. Not just because, as Rushdie says, the guns could well be turned on her or someone she likes in the future; but also because the principle and ideal of free speech is not contingent on approval of the content of the speech or the character of the speaker. If it were, it would be no principle at all. And the fact that all sorts of smart people don't seem to notice this, or worse, don't seem to mind all that much, is, as I say, rather curious and in fact a bit frightening, in an "I weep for the children" kind of way.
Prose's essay contains a reductio ad absurdum: we allow the Nazis to march at Skokie but we don't give them an award. Pace Glenn Greenwald, the problem with this is not that it literally and straightforwardly likens Charlie Hebdo to neo-Nazis (it doesn't.) It's that it identifies the wrong "hero" in the analogy. Of course the neo-Nazis wouldn't deserve a freedom of speech award. But the ACLU and others who supported the case? They deserve a great big huge honkin' massive award for defending the principle of free speech, despite the (obviously justified) near-universal disgust for the content and the speakers. It's the challenging cases like this that test our principles. We have to stand for them, or they wither away. Saying "I support free speech but..." is a dead giveaway that: no, actually, I don't think you really do, in fact. Rushdie and PEN deserve a great deal of credit for sticking to their guns on this. They're right, and Prose et al. are wrong.
But this gets to another more general matter, which is the attitude toward free speech of people in my own cultural reference group (blue state urban well heeled stuff-white-people-like San Francisco types who self-flatteringly like to call ourselves "liberals" from time to time.) Basically, we tend to be a lot like Francine Prose's essay when it comes to free speech. Our support for it tends to be rather... "soft." And by that I mean: grudging, equivocal, contingent -- in essence, it kind of seems like we don't really mean it. I notice it whenever this topic comes up in social media and I'm stupid enough to argue about it there (and I'm sure it'll come up if I ever post this, in which case I'll probably be stupid enough to argue about it all over again.) Of course I'm in favor of free speech, but... the line describing what "free speech" means tends to be drawn very tightly and narrowly, with manifold exceptions and caveats that take the ideal of "disagree with what you have to say but defend to the death your right to say it" and poke it full of so many holes that pretty much anything can get through.
Two tacks stand out. One might be called legalistic: the notion that "free speech" has no intelligible meaning outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. If the Constitution doesn't literally prohibit it, it cannot, by definition, be an encroachment on, nor in fact have anything whatsoever to do with, free speech. And, in fact, if you say "free speech" when you mean anything other than speech protected by the First Amendment you're obviously an ignorant birdbrain. So, problem solved, next topic.
This is manifestly absurd to me, for a host of reasons, but people argue the case so fervently that I have to assume they must genuinely disagree with me, crazy as that may seem. (I think this, perhaps, originated as a displacement whereby the argument that the First Amendment only protects speech from government suppression -- quite obviously true, and often necessary to point out -- is applied unreflectively to the greater notion of freedom of expression. This then has become reified into a token that can be played without regard to whether it literally applies, as in, say, the question of freedom of expression in other countries, the Rushdie fatwa, or in cases where speech is suppressed or punished by some other means than the government literally sending in tanks or rounding up dissidents and the like.)
The other tack is related but much broader and more worrying, in part because it is, unlike the legalistic one, literally true. "Speech has consequences," it goes. Of course, you're free to say anything you like, but if it doesn't pass muster prepare for punishment. This is brought up when the subject is social media campaigns to get this or that person, say, fired for expressing an unpopular opinion. Of course it is quite true that speech, like everything else, has consequences. And there's no law, per se, against trying to organize mass harassment campaigns to get someone fired for holding an unfavored opinion. Nor should there be, unsettling though it often is in practice: the remedy for speech you don't like is more speech, and social pressure of that kind falls into that category. But that doesn't mean it doesn't, nonetheless, bear on the issue of freedom of expression, and it certainly doesn't mean it's a good idea. Tolerance is a two way street. You voluntarily allow people the freedom to express opinions with which you disagree because you realize there may come a time when you will want to expect the same from them in return. It's a moral ideal and it can be hard to live up to, but I don't think you can truly claim to be in favor of free speech if you don't accept and aren't willing to defend it. Tolerance only for things you like is not tolerance, but rather its opposite.
I see these two tacks, the legalistic and the social, as complementary attempts to make a kind of "end run" around tolerance. (Always in a good cause, of course -- so many unsavory things have been visited upon the world by well-meaning people in a good cause.) But the question arises, then: why do they do it? I think it has to be because they really do feel that some speech should be suppressed and punished for the good of the collective and would like to reserve the right to practice intolerance when they feel it necessary without being accused of illiberality. Of course they draw the line at murder; they presumably also draw the line at tanks in the streets and gulags full of dissidents. But there are other ways to police unpopular opinions, and there the line can be drawn in such a way as to provide quite a bit of wiggle room. And this is where "my" people seem to like to draw it.
Well, my view is that that wiggle room's "space" should be of concern to any writer or artist, any person really, who is not utterly confident that his or her speech or art will always meet with general approval or endorsement. (In fact, I think that kind of misplaced confidence underlies a great deal of the discourse in this matter.) "My" people seem to have no trouble seeing this logic when it comes to campaigns to ban or restrict access to books they or their friends have written -- no one tells Sherman Alexie: "speech has consequences man, maybe write a less controversial book next time?" And everyone understands that this matter concerns freedom of expression, despite the absence of tanks in the streets. Further, Salman Rushdie's death sentence is no less serious, nor less "free speech related," because the First Amendment doesn't happen to protect him from it.
I understand the distaste for the content of Charlie Hebdo. I understand why people don't like it and don't wish to associate themselves with it. And I also understand why many people approve of and congratulate them for disassociating themselves from it. They certainly have the right to do it. But I think it's wrong, and worse than wrong: it's ill-advised. When defending an ideal, you have to go all in. The line that you think murder went too far but that some other punishment for Charlie Hebdo might well have been in order is not a defense of free speech. It is its opposite. If you're a writer or artist, the idea of punishment for art should be anathema.
So yeah, though I dislike joining clubs and such, I guess I have to say je suis Charlie here, because the alternative pretty much gives whole show away. They drew pictures, they were punished by death. Give 'em the damn award.
April 26, 2015
My Sister's Book Club
April 01, 2015
King Dork Approximately
March 19, 2015
Trust the state. The state is your friend. It hardly ever uses its power to oppress people, particularly minorities.
A few links of the day, on a general "careful what you wish for" theme. Proponents of greater state control in a good cause never seem to consider the quite likely possibility that these instruments of enforcement might well be turned against themselves.
1. Here's an almost literally interminable denunciation of the First Amendment, the United States, and liberalism in the name of furthering "progressive" aims for a more just society.
Now, it may well be a parody, or "trolling" or somesuch. On the other hand, it may not be, and I've bumped up against enough right-on good and true self-identifying "progressives" who sincerely share these views to put that question in irresolvable doubt. If this particular writer is not sincere, she might as well be. tl;dr (and boy is it ever "tl"): the US is backward and uncivilized for failing to join Europe and other more "progressive" countries in imprisoning those who express unpleasant, unhelpful, offensive, or otherwise forbidden views about this or that. In a better world (e.g. Australia) people would be judged "automatically guilty of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating minorities unless they can prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt." Further: "in Australia, you absolutely cannot call yourself a progressive unless you actively work to criminalize all forms of un-progressive speech."
Well, what could go wrong? "Progressive" in the sense used here is quite vague, characterizing a mood and a sense of cultural affinity rather than anything specific or concrete; and what might, over time, constitute the presumptively inviolable ok "progressive" type of speech is accordingly subject to a great deal of uncertainty. (Indeed, it varies widely from progressive to progressive at present; everyone has an ox they'd rather not see gored, even the putative "good people.") Moreover, states can and will use such laws as pretexts to target those it deems to be enemies, who could well include some of the good people, oddly enough. How do you know whether your ideas are forbidden or "okay" at any given point? Answer: wait to see if the state decides to punish you for them. Trust the state. The state is your friend. It hardly ever uses its power to oppress people, particularly minorities.
Indeed,the notion that the sort of system proposed here is likely to protect minorities, rather than subject them to arbitrary abuse, now or down the road, is puzzling-to-insane. It can only seem sensible, it seems to me, to someone who believes he or his will never, ever be in the crosshairs, a particularly ludicrous assumption for a left-activist to make. In fact, this essay itself feels quite hate-y, as it were. Would our ingenuous Australian progressive care to roll the dice and let someone else decide whether or not she should be imprisoned for it? The First Amendment is an attempt to take the state out of that equation, and thank God we've got it. Maybe, if the article is a parody, that's the point being made here as well, oblique, leaden, and interminable though it may be. ("Assaults on the human dignity of Muslims are simply not tolerated in Europe." Irony or mere distance from awareness of reality? You decide. Regardless, Bill of Rights all the way.)
2. Fredrik deBoer comments on the latest Laura Kipnis controversy summarized here. tl;dr: Professor Kipnis wrote a flippant article decrying sexual policing and the new censorious spirit on campus, in response to which a group of students showed up outside her office with mattresses (because apparently this is a thing now -- the mattress is the new pitchfork) demanding that the university officially condemn her, and demonstrating her point more eloquently than the essay itself ever could. Irony noted by deBoer, who adds:
That should be a lesson to the left in general: we should oppose incursions on free speech not merely out of principle but also because the left is vulnerable and lacks power, by its very nature. Precisely because we speak for powerless constituencies, the left will very rarely control the ability to dictate which kinds of speech are permissible. We are much more likely to be censored than to effectively censor others. Only in the funhouse mirror views of campus life or online bubbles could we become so sure of our own ability to dictate who gets to say what, when. It’s for that reason that I say, for example, that the day we pass anti-hate speech legislation in this country is the day that Palestinian activism is declared hate speech, because of inequities in political power in this country. The left’s flirtations with censorship are not merely wrong on principle; they’re self-destructive.Indeed.
3. Finally, a quote from Reason's Robby Soave, in his post about the latest case of abuse by Virginia's Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. (They beat a black UVA student bloody after he was turned away from a bar.) Apparently the increased police presence was at least partly instituted "for the protection of women."
It does suck. But as was the case with the terrible choking death of Eric Garner, liberals should remember that a general call for more things to be illegal—for the government to do more about a problem—is by necessity a call for increasingly vigorous policing. A demand for bigger government is essentially a request for more clashes between cops and citizens (socially-marginalized citizens, in particular).Whenever government agents are caught abusing citizens on the basis of some inane pretext, well-meaning people always respond with sincere calls for the institution of still more such pretexts, that is, for greater, rather than lesser, effective power to the institutions responsible for the abuse. There are great problems in our society, obviously, but if anything is clear from the last several decades, it's that you can't simply criminalize your way out of social problems without the risk of making them far worse. e.g., the War on Drugs most egregiously but I believe it's something like a generally applicable dynamic as well. Activism for greater state power on behalf of those most vulnerable and likely to suffer from it truly boggles my mind.
Or, in meme form:
March 18, 2015
We've got to catch this guy in the act of paying for the stuff we're selling him...
But he doesn't have any money. So, we just give him some money, then have him give it right back to us, wouldn't that work? I don't know, that might make it look kind of implausible that's he's at fault, like the only reason he did it is because we arranged it all and told him what to say and what to do and who to take the money from and who to give it to. I know, we'll give the money to someone else to give to him, then tell him to give it back to us. Wait, can't we just skip the middleman and give the money directly to ourselves, blaming it on him? And actually why does there even need to be any money in the first place? We can just say there was some money, somewhere, and it'd be the same difference. And that way we could even maybe use the technique on people who aren't mentally ill. That would really widen our field of targets. No, no shortcuts, this is a big case. We have to do it by the book.
The Best of All Possible Charts and Graphs
A revolving metal cylinder containing a sacred text, the Tibetan prayer wheel is set in motion by the turn of a human hand. The result is an automated form of prayer, which the votary believes may secure good fortune and the prospect of liberation from the round of birth and death. The belief system that the prayer wheel serves may possess a certain archaic charm, with its sacred texts displaying a dialectical subtlety not often found in western philosophy. Still, it will be self-evident to any modern mind that the device is thoroughly unscientific. How much better to fashion a high-tech prayer wheel – an electronic tablet containing inspirational statistics on the progress of humankind, powered by algorithms that show this progress to be ongoing.
Unlike the old-fashioned prayer wheel, the device would be based on the latest scientific knowledge. Programmed to collect and process big data, it would have the ability to deliver statistics that never fail to show long-term improvement in the human condition. If regress of any kind was happening, it would appear as a temporary pause in the forward march of the species. In order to ward off moods of doubt – to which even the most convinced believers in improvement are occasionally prone – the device would broadcast sound versions of the uplifting statistics. Best of all, the device would be designed to be worn at all times.
-- John Gray, on the role of the stats, charts, and graphs in Steven Pinker's account of our nature's better angels' inexorable Whiggish progress from the Englightenment to the positivist earthly paradise that is allegedly just about almost pretty much here already. (He also references the matrices of John Dee's angels, unexpectedly and aptly. The sweeping final section would be worth reading for the masterful rhetoric alone, even if he weren't on to something, which I believe he is.)
March 12, 2015
Pipo Marta Beppe
Our Love Will Last Forever and Ever
March 05, 2015
Here's some links
Mostly just random:
-- At the end of a run of joyful riffing on the manifold absurdities of Treacherous Love by Beatrice Sparks (of Go Ask Alice fame) the host of this podcast has nice things to say about King Dork and my musical oeuvre, if oeuvre means what I think it does. (The podcast's theme is "godawful books," and it was funny/interesting enough that I checked out a few other episodes as well. Good-natured ridicule is the best kind, and this is fun stuff.)
-- here's an interview I did for WYPL's Book Talk program in Memphis.
-- Q&A w/me in the Berkeley Monthly.
-- King Dork Approximately is on this list of "six of the best YA outsider stories" on the Barnes & Noble teen blog; also on that blog (and I can't remember if I've linked to it before so if so, sorry) King Dork appears as a Catcher in the Rye counterpoint on < href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/teen/some-actual-young-adult-suggestions-for-times-young-adult-list/">this Time magazine-baiting list.
-- Dr. Frank, the Punks in Vegas interview.
-- I wound up on this list of 15 authors to watch on Popcrush.
-- They compared me to Sondheim ("a Sondheim he ain't...") I think that's what the reference in this Washington Post post is getting at.
March 03, 2015
Here be my shows update. Some are book things (where I usually play songs) and some are MTX etc. rock and roll shows. See if there's anything you like.
Thurday, March 12
Indigo Literacy Night, Frost Elementary, 530 Gettysburg Dr, San Jose, CA 95123. 6 PM.
w/Dashka Slater, Jennifer Fosberry, Sarah Jamila Stevenson
Wednesday, March 18
Adobe Books, 3130 24th St, San Francisco, California 94103
7PM. with Bucky Sinister, and Michael T. Fournier. Note, this is at the new location of Adobe on 24th. Should be a good time so come on by. (Facebook page here.)
Saturday, March 21
Geekfest 2015, 924 Gilman Street, Berkeley, CA 94710
Noon - 8PM. Free. w/Black Fork, Bobby Joe Ebola and the Children MacNuggits, Jewdriver, the Hammerbombs and many more. This'll be a solo acoustic set from me.
Friday, March 27
Thee Parkside, 1600 17th Street, San Francisco, CA 415-252-1330.
MTX show w/the Queers, the Bombpops, and the Piniellas. $20. Buy tickets here.
Saturday, March 28
The Troubadour, 9081 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, CA 90069.
MTX show w/the Queers, The Bombpops, and the Piniellas. $20. Buy tickets here.
Sunday, March 29
Burgerama, The Observatory, 3503 S. Harbor Blvd., Santa Ana, CA. 714-957-0600.
This is a big festival that MTX and the Queers are crashing. I'll get to say I shared a bill with Gang of Four, Weezer, and Roky Erickson, kinda like the time we played in a parking lot marginally related to show featuring U2, I guess. Real show biz, in other words.
Saturday, April 4
Atomic Books, 3620 Falls Rd, Baltimore, Maryland 21211
5PM. This is a pre-show bookstore appearance, the show being the Insub Spring Thing listed just below. Reading, signing, Q&A and (probably mostly) acoustic songs. Facebook event page here.
and then, at 9PM:
Insub Spring Thing, the Sidebar Tavern, 218-20 E Lexington St, Baltimore, Maryland 21202
The line-up is supposed to be a secret, but there are five bands, one of whom will be backing me playing MTX songs.
Tuesday, April 14
Teen Book Fest, Lafayette Library and Learning Center, Lafayette Public Library, 3491 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette, CA, 94549. 6PM.
w/ Yvonne Prinz, Betsy Streeter, Mitali Perkins and Veronica Rossi
February 27, 2015
Quote for the Day
Post-structuralism has destroyed two generations of graduate students, who were forced to mouth its ugly jargon and empty platitudes for their foolish faculty elders. And the end result is that humanities departments everywhere, having abandoned their proper mission of defending and celebrating art, have become humiliatingly marginalized in both reputation and impact.Camille Paglia in America Magazine, via Instapundit.