This album is definitively The Shins. It is the same band that was playing when we all suddenly realized we loved Natalie Portman. The same band that helped spark our love for dreamy indie rock in the mid 2000s. The same band we listened to while we smoked pot in run-down college apartments, where the peeling lead paint followed our sobriety and James Mercer’s strumming.

I’m getting ahead of myself and more than a little awash in fond nostalgia. It’s great to have The Shins back but like the best friend from college you haven’t seen in years, it is a little awkward. You’ve both changed; maybe not for the better, maybe not for the worse. Things just aren’t the same.

Upon first re-introductions, you aren’t sure what to make of it. It’s familiar, but…

All the elements that make “The Shins” The Shins are here in one form or another, largely fueled by James Mercer’s uniquely beautiful crooning. Still, it isn’t quite as you remember it. The drums feel a little more prominent. There are wavy synthesizers buried in the background. The production is a little clearer, a little tighter, than we are used to.

It isn’t better, it isn’t worse. It just isn’t the same.

Maybe towards the end of your first play-through of the album, you start to warm up to it. Maybe it takes a second visit before you are comfortable with it. Eventually, if you are open to it, after all these years, you realize just how much you’ve missed The Shins.

This is a good album. Chutes Too Narrow was the band’s magnum opus, a level they will never be able to reach again; I am okay with that. The Bulls still won championships after their 72-10 season. Tarantino will never make another Pulp Fiction, but Inglourius Basterds was a great movie. You and your buddy will never forget carrying cases of beer for two miles through the Smokey Mountains, but that wasn’t the end of the good times.

In the same vein, The Shins have Port Of Morrow, and that is unquestionably a good thing.

You’ve long since moved into a comfy loft with vibrantly-painted walls. You’ve traded the bong for a 9-5 job where you probably wear a tie and look like your dad. Natalie Portman has a kid.

Things may have changed, but this is still the band you remember. It’s good to have them back in your life.

Listen on Spotify.

The Bottom Line

85/100 – Welcome back.

Listen To

Simple Song, the first single

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyAJ4V06izg

It’s Only Life, as featured on SNL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS8gxsHQwnU

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”
― Gloria Naylor

Today is International Women’s Day and what a great day it is! I’m a proud feminist and so in honor of today I thought I’d give ya’ll a crash course in feminism.

If you don’t consider yourself a feminist, there is a good chance you are rolling your eyes at this point: feminists sure have gotten a bad wrap! They are man-hating, bra-burning lesbians! Suffice to say that isn’t really “a thing” in feminist circles. That perception has been covered by entire books and college courses and way too much for me to cover in one blog post but if you believe that you of all people should definitely read on.

I’ll be the first to admit I am not as well-read on the subject as many people but it’s a subject I find very important. The first step is most important so lets get to it.

Some key terms

“If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?”
― Mary Astell

Feminism means a lot of things to a lot of people so offering one, unified definition is real hard, if not impossible! That being said, I define feminism as: a belief in the social and economic equality of all people, regardless of gender.

As a feminist, I believe in the existence of Patriarchy (you definitely don’t have to be a feminist to believe in the patriarchy, it’s a pretty common idea). That is a bit harder to define but you know it when you see it. It is generally thought of as the social construct with (generally white) men at the center.

Patriarchy isn’t an organization or a club, you don’t “do” patriarchy. It is the way society has been structured over thousands of years to benefit men at the expense of women. It is similar in some degree to the systemic suppression of non-whites in the last few hundred years, so it is no surprise that the modern feminist movement was strongly intertwined with the civil rights movement!

Anyway, where is the patriarchy? Women get paid less than men for equal work? That’s patriarchy. Rush Limbaugh’s recent vile rants against Sandra Fluke? Patriarchy. The “father knows best” mentality, best exemplified by 1950s America but continues today? Patriarchy!

Those are examples of patriarchy on a societal level but it can be quite common on a personal level. I’d daresay that it happens so often on a personal level that we don’t even pay attention or realize it!

I hope you have never heard someone actually say these things because they are bad people and you shouldn’t associate with them BUT, the belief that she was “asking for it” or is a slut by dressing seductively or wearing makeup? That is called slut-shaming and that is patriarchy. Ever be a witness (or victim) of a man coming up to a woman at a bar and not flirting with them, but being downright creepy in terms of demands or physical touching? Yeah, that’s patriarchy. Women don’t have the right to an abortion? It’s a touchy subject due to the influence of religion but yeah, that’s patriarchy too.

P.S. if you refer to women as “females” on a regular basis that is DEFINITELY patriarchy.

I cannot even begin to count the number of amazing women I have encountered. Whether they are family or co-workers, casual acquaintances or lifelong friends, they are the reason I am a feminist. They deserve better.

Some quick facts

Here are some quick facts about the patriarchy, courtesy of the goons over at Something Awful.

• Poverty rates are higher for women than men. In 2007,13.8 percent of females were poor compared to 11.1 percent of men.
• Women are poorer than men in all racial and ethnic groups. Recent data shows that 26.5 percent of African American women are poor compared to 22.3 percent of African American men; 23.6 percent of Hispanic women are poor compared to 19.6 percent of Hispanic men; 10.7 percent of Asian women are poor compared to 9.7 percent of Asian men; and 11.6 percent of white women are poor compared to 9.4 percent of white men.
• Black and Latina women face particularly high rates of poverty. Over a quarter of black women and nearly a quarter of Latina women are poor. Black and Latina women are at least twice as likely as white women to be living in poverty.
• Only a quarter of all adult women (age 18 and older) with incomes below the poverty line are single mothers. Over half of all poor adult women—54 percent—are single with no dependent children.
• Women are paid less than men, even when they have the same qualifications and work the same hours. Women who work full time earn only 77 percent of what men make—a 22 percent gap in average annual wages. Discrimination, not lack of training or education, is largely the cause of the wage gap. Even with the same qualifications, women earn less than men. In 2007, full time, year round female workers aged 25 to 32 with a bachelor’s degree were paid 14 percent less than men.
• Women are segregated into low paying occupations, and occupations dominated by women are low paid. Women are tracked into “pink-collar” jobs such as teaching, child care, nursing, cleaning, and waitressing, which typically pay less than jobs in industries that are male-dominated. In 2007, nearly half—43 percent—of the 29.6 million employed women in the United States were clustered in just 20 occupational categories, of which the average annual median earnings were $27,383.
• Women spend more time providing unpaid caregiving than men. Women are more likely than men to care for children and elderly or disabled family members. One study found that 69 percent of unpaid caregivers to older adults in the home are women. Because combining unpaid caregiving with paid work can be challenging, women are more likely to work part time or take time out of the workforce to care for family. Twenty-three percent of mothers are out of the workforce compared to just 1 percent of fathers.
• Domestic and sexual violence can push women into a cycle of poverty. Experiencing domestic or sexual violence can lead to job loss, poor health, and homelessness. It is estimated that victims of intimate partner violence collectively lose almost 8 million days of paid work each year because of the violence perpetrated against them by current or former husbands, boyfriends, or dates. Half of the cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness.

Further material!

The book “Feminism is for EVERYBODY” is recommended as the starting point by just about every blog I have read. I am in the middle of reading it now and while it is a bit hard to get into at first, once things start to click it makes for an enjoyable read.

Feminist Frequency is a good and accessible vlog.

Here is a smattering of good ol’ fashioned blogs: Feministing, BtchFlcks, Finally Feminism 101.

Meet your candidates.

Can you smell that in the air? It must be Super Tuesday! 10 states will be hitting the polls to vote in the Republican primary (technically the Democratic primary too but, spoiler alert, Obama is going to win that). Unfortunately, this year isn’t going to be nearly as super and I can say with some certainty that this primary race will not be over by the end of the day.

There are 424 delegates at stake today (1,144 is the magic number needed) but most of these delegates will be awarded proportionally instead of winner-takes-all, meaning a second or even third place win could net at least SOME delegates. With four remaining candidates, the delegate split will be too great to put an end to the primary.

Perception is everything. A slim victory margin in a proportional state won’t net a candidate any noticeable gains in the delegate math but they will be able to chuck the state into their ‘victory’ column, giving at least the perception of momentum. In a race that has been defined by the “inevitable” candidate and the so-called “Not Romney,” the stakes are clear: Mitt Romney needs a respectable showing to fend off the question “is he the best we can do?” and the Not Romneys, well, need to show that they can beat Romney.

Each candidate has a different approach. Newt Gingrich is bunkering down in Georgia, hoping for a combination of a strong win in his home state and a solid Romney performance to bump Rick Santorum down. Rick Santorum is hoping to fortify his second-place position with strong performances in the South and an upset in Ohio. Ron Paul looks to do well in caucuses while playing the ‘delegate math’ game, picking off as many delegates as he can on the way to 1,144. Mitt Romney will have strong performances in Massachusetts and Virginia, where only he and Ron Paul are on the ballot.

State breakdown

Alaska (27 delegates) - Delegates here are awarded by caucus, a realm where Ron Paul is supposedly strong. Combined with the difficulty in polling the state and a lack of advertisements (Romney has leaned heavily on bombarding a state with ads to win), it is nearly impossible to predict how it will play out.

Georgia (76 delegates) - This is Newt Gingrich’s home state and where he has spent most of his time campaigning. There is no way he won’t come out big here and he could even crack 50%. He is banking on a stellar performance here to provide some much-needed energy (and money) to his campaign.

Idaho (32 delegates) - Although this is another caucus state, it also has a large Mormon population, who have thus far come out in droves for Mitt Romney. Expect a solid performance from him here.

Massachusetts (41 delegates) - Mitt Romney was governor of the state from 2002 to 2006 and candidates need to cross a 15% threshold to be awarded delegates. Expect a clean sweep from Romney.

North Dakota (28 delegates) - The third caucus state voting this Super Tuesday. Ron Paul is hoping for a strong showing here to net him his first state win.

Ohio (66 delegates) - Rick Santorum had held a respectable lead in Ohio but Mitt Romney has closed the gap to a statistical tie. Proportionality renders a lot of this moot, but no Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio. A win here for Santorum will go a long way towards supporting his case of electability in the general election against Barack Obama.

Oklahoma (43 delegates) - If a candidate breaks the 50% marker here they are awarded all the delegates, but that won’t be happening. Rick Santorum has polled relatively well here but in recent days Mitt Romney has again closed the gap. Expect a Santorum win but not a large net gain in delegates.

Tennessee (58 delegates) - Rick Santorum has the slimmest of leads here and is a must-win for him. Again, perception is everything.

Vermont (17 delegates) - Close to Mitt Romney’s home state of Massachusetts, expect him to perform quite well here.

Virginia (49 delegates) - An unusually high, unusually early, signature requirement means only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul appear on the ballot. Romney will absolutely clean up here and put a major damper on any big Gingrich gains out of Georgia.

Predictions

Super Tuesday is Romney’s to lose, but don’t expect that to happen. My predictions are a little generous in giving Alaska to Ron Paul and that is mostly out of some insane desire of mine to see the doctor pick up a little steam. The only real question is who will win Ohio. I can feel in my gut that the SuperPAC/advertisement blitz by Romney will net him a win there, but you never know.

 Gingrich - Georgia

Paul - Alaska

Romney - Massachusetts, Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Vermont

Santorum - Ohio, Tennessee, Oklahoma

What’s next?

Mitt Romney is going to clean house but the delegate math (are you sensing any key points yet?) is going to keep this race running. Newt Gingrich could bow out gracefully after a big win in his home state but with a man like him, you never know. Don’t expect too much to change after Super Tuesday, this slug fest is going to keep on truckin’.

Read the full schedule of primary dates.

Sleigh Bells’ debut album “Treats” was the surprise smash hit of 2010, launching the band to the pinnacle of success (if it were 1997) by being featured in an X-Games commercial. Much like the X-Games, I am more in love with the idea of a Sleigh Bells follow-up album than I am with the album itself.

It’s not that “Reign of Terror” isn’t a good album, it just isn’t a good Sleigh Bells album. “Treats” was an experience to behold. To paraphrase a meme, one does not simple listen to “Treats.” You had to prepare yourself mentally for the sheer audible ass-kicking you were about to receive. After listening to “Treats” I would sit back and feel mentally exhausted. I just don’t feel that spark with “Reign of Terror.”

I can respect a band’s wish to diversify and experiment, but this is a step in the wrong direction. All I really wanted was a continuation of what made Sleigh Bells great: raw, aggressive guitar and chest cavity thumping beats. This was the most exposure the ‘loud noise’ genre has gotten in years and it’s disappointing to see Sleigh Bells shy away from that.

There is one major issue I have that would be irrelevant if this was almost any other band: the terrible track order. There was a definitive flow and feel to the band’s first album that isn’t replicated here. The album is a hodgepodge of fast and slow, aggressive and passive, with no regards to the pacing. This was an integral part of why “Treats” was as face-meltingly awesome as it was to see it not replicated here is a major let-down.

I wanted to make sure I wasn’t guilty of complaining for the sake of complaining so after listening to and reviewing “Reign of Terror” I let Spotify play on through “Treats.” I instantly felt justified and then exhausted as I rode the roller coaster that is the first four tracks of that album. Sorry, Sleigh Bells. Better luck next time.

Listen on Spotify

The Bottom Line

65/100 – Too tame, so lame

Clicks to Pick

Comeback Kid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiwcUdX7XMw

Track breakdown:

1)      True Shred Guitar – I’ve never been a huge fan of “intro” tracks and while this is kind of a song too, it still isn’t very good.

2)      Born to Lose – I want to love this track but it’s just lacking that extra punch the opening of “Treats” had.

3)      Crush – This is album filler of the worst degree, the kind that comes at the beginning of the album.

4)      End of the Line – A clear step outside the Sleigh Bells Comfort Zone but in a good way. The drums are relegated to the back of the track behind Alexis Krauss’ beautiful voice and an almost synthesizer-esque lead guitar riff.

5)      Leader of the Pack – This reminds me of a back track off “Treats” and while it’s pretty good, it is just way too tame for what I want from this band.

6)      Comeback Kid – Now THIS is what I’m talking about! Unquestionably the best track on the album and as “Sleigh Bells” as it gets. You can practically picture the twduct-taped drum heads, unclipped guitar strings and slightly-stoned singer as you listen to this.

7)      Demons – This track is metal as fuck (in a good way.)

8)      Road to Hell – Most of this track is Alexis saying “road to hell” and I am perfectly okay with that.

9)      You Lost Me – It sounds like Sleigh Bells but… it sounds nothing like them. I don’t get it either, but I dig this track.

10)   Never Say Die – They bring back the heavier hip-hop drums here but it’s too little, too late. The guitar riff sounds like something from a Sega Genesis game.

11)   D.O.A. – At this point I just want the album to be over.

Obviously I associate with journalists but that doesn’t accurately represent my current condition (IE out of work) so I tossed this together.

Feel free to repost or share whatever but please don’t chop off my watermark.

My personal favorite?

Anyway, here are the rest. Feel free to use at your leisure.

Looks like Guinness but it ain't.

When I first heard about Guinness’ new Black Lager, I took it upon myself to launch a decidedly half-assed quest to find it. This adventure mostly consisted of looking in the coolers of my go-to liquor store (they didn’t have it) then politely sitting around for 10 minutes while the cashier looked it up in their computer registry (it was on file but they didn’t carry it. Duh).

Imagine my surprise when I stumbled across it this past Thursday evening! If it wasn’t for the young women blocking my regular path to the “$13 whiskey” section I would have never found this new brew. Sticking true to my bitter writer’s persona, I decided to drink a six pack then complain about it on the internet.

Guinness Black Lager is billed as a “cold brewed [lager] with roasted barley to deliver the refreshing taste of a lager with the unique character of Guinness,” a beer brewed in an attempt to break into the burgeoning U.S. craft beer market. I am far from a beer snob and while I can BS my way through telling the difference between a pale ale and a lager, I am concerned with two things: Is this a good brew and am I going to get drunk? Spoiler alert: No and no.

The first thing one must realize before drinking Guinness Black Lager is that this is Guinness in name only. “I don’t like Guinness” is fodder for a Shit Beer Drinkers Say video, but that excuse won’t fly here. The beer’s dark color might be off-putting to those anti-Guinness heathens but the similarities between the two abruptly end there.

The beer pours a dark brown like standard issue Guinness, something that will probably chase off the aforementioned squirrelly anti-Guinnessites types. Good riddance, we don’t need them. The beer’s aroma bares a passing resemblance to some of the nuttier seasonal brews from Sam Adams. The smell of a beer has never been a big concern for me, but there is something oddly alluring here. It’s subtle but with a presence, much like a serial killer stalking his victim through a shopping mall or “Watch The Throne” coming on at a party.

At first sip, the beer is palatable enough. The roasted barley flavor is there as billed, a sweet, caramel taste with a hint of nutty chocolate (where are those squirrelly anti-Guinness-ites now?) The flavor is far from heavy and while it is noticeable, is almost immediately washed away with how damn watery the beer is. I’m as guilty as the next unemployed, beer-drinking blogger of using overly-verbose hyperbole, and I can’t even think of an apt analogy for how disappointingly bland Guinness Black Lager’s aftertaste is. It is completely non-existent. There is no aftertaste. None. Not unless you count the weird, gunky taste in my mouth that I blame on this beer and not poor dental hygiene.

To its credit, this beer could make a good “cooking” beer if it wasn’t so watery. I admittedly am not as familiar with the Transitive Property of Beer Cooking as I sometimes pretend to be, but Guinness Black Lager could make a good addition to a chocolate dessert or a pot roast.

At $8.99 for a six pack, Guinness Black Lager is painfully overpriced. At 4.5% alcohol content, it is painfully impotent. Between the rich color and the Guinness brand, this is a tease of the worst degree. If I had to guess the niche for this beer, it would be people who do not like Guinness but don’t want to come off like they don’t know anything about beer for not liking Guinness. I will probably keep a bottle of this on display in my kitchen as both a conversation piece and a warning to others.

PROS

The shades of blue approach on a typical Guinness label is quite nice.

CONS

Taste, price, alcohol content (the three things that matter in a beer)

No one is this excited to drink Guinness Black Lager.

When the Sun-Times announced their ‘metered pay plan’  Tuesday afternoon, I had about the same reaction as everyone else: WTF?

First the quick ‘n dirty facts. Visitors will be able to read 20 free articles a month before they hit the paywall (affectionately stolen borrowed from the New York Times paywall model). Beyond that, digital subscriptions will cost $1.99 a month for those who already subscribe to the print edition and $6.99 a month for digital-only customers.

Note the language here; customers, not readers. Sun-Times’ choice of phrasing, not mine.

This is a risky, but (probably) calculated move following other newspapers that found mixed success.

Just this morning, the Minnesota Star Tribune revealed some numbers about their paywall that was launched this past fall. While the numbers were undoubtably crunched a dozen times over for the best possible spin, it shows that the paywall is (probably) not a complete failure. As described by Poynter:

The Star Tribune tells David Brauer how its paywall is doing a month after launch. Ad revenue will suffer from lower traffic, which is down 10 to 15 percent, depending on the metric. But the newspaper has 5,900 new digital subscribers, 1,150 of whom are now getting the Sunday newspaper, too. And more people are paying a bit extra to bundle digital access with their print subscriptions. “So in four weeks, the Strib has potentially reaped about $800,000 in new digital circulation revenue,” Brauer writes.

Of course, there is the New York Times’ implementation last March. The big daddy, the grand poobah of newspaper paywalls. It revealed itself to be relatively easy to bypass for those ‘in the know’ about technology. How’s that working for them? They now boast 324,000 digital subscribers.  Obviously there is a hefty gap in both quantity and quality between the NYT and the Sun-Times.

There are reasons to think the Sun-Times’ paywall might succeed (which I define as not being a horrible failure) but there are just as many to assume the worst. There has been a steady decline in reporters and copyeditors for years, supplanted by AP copy. It’s become an assumed inevitability that online readership drops off after a paywall and along with it, ad revenue. It’s a very careful line to walk, the difference between ad revenue lost and digital subscribers gained.

The Sun-Times has given itself a clear target to reach. Probably not a smart move, all things considered.

He [Company chairman Jeremy Halbreich] also said other metro papers that have tried metered systems have seen temporary declines in their web traffic, but that activity generally picks up after about three months.

I guess we’ll have to check back in three months and see where they are at.

There are plenty of people who will bite their thumb at the paywall. “The Sun-Times? I would NEVER pay for that rag!” You probably weren’t already, and this move isn’t really targeting you. Like the NYT model, the 20 free articles gives plenty of leeway for the occasional visitor. I visit the Sun-Times every day as a part of my regulars ‘news outlet tour’ but I’m not sure I click 20 articles a month. And of course, therein lies the problem.

Chicago is a big market. Between the Chicago Tribune, WGN, Huffington Post Chicago, Chicago Reader, the Redeye, the Chicago News Cooperative, Chicago Public Media and the flock of broadcast news sites, we aren’t exactly short on news sources.

It’s too early in the process to say if this will work, fail, or fall into the nebulous ambiguity that has plagued the Sun-Times for years. The notions of paywalls are still young enough that no one can say for sure how it will pan out.

Maybe they’ll see good-to-great successes and start to actually grow. Or maybe

No matter what happens, it should be an interesting ride.

Afterthought: Then again, there is a healthy portion of openly racist, blatant hateful angry people who troll the Sun-Times comments sections who will (if their ideology is as strong as their vitriol) no doubt gladly stop accepting handouts from the Sun-Times. Maybe that was the marketing plan behind all this? That or boobs.

By the way, I’m looking for work. Investigate my LinkedIn profile or find me on Twitter.