david bourgeois

I have to admit, my first couple spins of the latest Dirty Projectors record, “Swing Lo Magellan,” left me frustrated; I quickly tired of the seemingly pretentious vocal harmonizing. The record left me cold despite the critical praise, and I deemed it a piece of shit.

Ok, I was wrong, completely wrong.

It’s actually a great record, probably their best, though I do like “Bitte Orca.” It’s the kind of record that takes many spins before it can be fully appreciated.

Here’s one of my favorite tracks…

As the election nears, one thing has surprised me most. I fully believed the tea party would have proverbially jumped the shark by 2011 or at least imploded. Once this nefarious group of lurdanes who embraced the extremist movement were elected to Congress, I thought that’s about it. Game over. Unfortunately, although they have been correctly labeled as right-wing extremists, racists, and the like, their influence and leaderless organization has likely damaged the political landscape in the U.S. for decades to come.

Before the ascendency of the tea party in 2009, politicians in Washington surely were on opposite sides of the political fence, but at least they had a common goal: to pass legislation that helped people. That’s what governments do: help people. How else would Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy, two guys with less than zero in common politically, have been able to not only work together and pass legislation but remain close personal friends until Kennedy’s death in August 2009?

Can anyone seriously imagine a close legislative partnership like that happening in today’s seriously fucked up and damaged political environment? Imagine a tea-party activist senator (say a Jim DeMint) and a liberal Democrat (say Al Franken) coming together and bridging differences to pass important legislation; it’s not even fathomable. The main culprit for this death of bipartisanship and comity among legislators is the tea party. Somehow the rogue group’s members brainwashed enough of America in believing compromise was akin to terrorism; Democrats weren’t American. The Democratic (or “Democrat” as the pejorative goes) Party was not just a target for defeat, which is fine in the world of politics, but it was viewed on with the same hatred as the Taliban or al-Qaeda (or socialism, is their perverted world-view).

Ironically, the tea-party movement itself is far more closely aligned with terrorist groups than any movement on the left. Just like al-Qaeda, the tea party is willing to completely destroy its opposition. And if the tea party “patriots” (there’s a rich noun) could get away with killings and bombings of their adversaries, they would happily wage such campaigns. If Jim DeMint et al. could blow up government buildings and assassinate liberals and Democrats throughout the U.S. and somehow remain clandestine and free from being caught, I believe he and his tea partiers would. They haven’t an ounce of morality among the members. Actually, the tea party should be put on government lists of known terrorist groups; its hierarchy should be foremost on the FBI’s most-wanted list.

An extremist opinion? Sure, but once you strip down al-Qaeda and look at its infrastructure and training, it begins to look an awful lot like the tea-party movements across the United States. Only major difference is the end goals of the groups.

If the tea party continues its anti-government stances and promotes its religious extremism, which it will, I’m hopeful the American people will be able to rise up and defeat them. For even conservatives are now realizing that the tea party doesn’t represent their views. Just ask moderate senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who was ousted in his primary by Richard Mourdock, a knuckle-dragging tea-party nut job.

Adding insult to injury (literally), Democratic and Republican politicians somehow managed to take the terribly sad and tragic events of Aurora, Colorado, and make them worse. In the face of the worst shooting in U.S. history, politicians of all political biases danced around the obvious, tripped over their sentences, and did everything imaginable to avoid uttering two words: gun control. That term probably strikes more fear into politicians than actually staring down the barrel of a .357 magnum.

Just look at Colorado’s Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Sure, he was dealing with the tragedy’s aftermath and wanted to proffer healing words, but he completely botched a question on gun control lobbed by host David Gregory. Hickenlooper said, “You look at this person [Holmes]…this creature…if he couldn’t have gotten access to the guns, what kind of bomb would he have created?” Hickenlooper then pivoted to a nonsequitur, saying how we live in an “information age.” An unmistakeable WTF moment if there ever was one.

Thus, it didn’t take long for the usual suspects to show up. The rabidly right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial writers fawned over the governor’s remarks in an editorial called, “Hickenlooper’s Good Sense.” (Being praised by the WSJ editorial board is kind of like your crazy, smelly, repulsive relative cornering you, saying, “You’ve always been my favorite.” But I digress.) The Journal loved, just loved, the fact that the liberal governor punted when given the floor to talk about sensible gun control.

Reliable blowhards such as Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie, too, all sang from the same songbook: “Now Is Not the Time to Talk About Gun Control.” For these and other right-wingers, when is a good time? Their answer? Never. The only one who had the courage to bring up gun control after the massacre was New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and even he was silenced.

I’d love to place all the blame on Republicans for ignoring gun control since they’re the ones married to firearms, but honestly, I can’t. In four years, President Obama has shown little interest in tackling the dizzying rise of gun violence in the United States, and he hasn’t renewed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. Let’s face it, for Democrats in congress any legislation with the words “gun control” in the title might as well have the words “Osama bin Laden Appreciation Day.”

Why are politicians of all political stripes in fear of gun control? We all know why, but no one says it. The National Rifle Association has bullied and bribed lawmakers and politicians into silence. This begs the question, Why the hell do we need the NRA anyway? What’s their mission? Just log on to their website and you’ll soon know the answer. The splash page pleads for viewers to register to vote. Huh? Isn’t the NRA a group dedicated to teaching about gun safety? Nope. The home page blathers on about the Fast and Furious gun-running debacle and how Attorney General Eric Holder should be held in contempt. What does that have to do with the NRA’s alleged “mission,” which, according to their own website, is “to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Answer? Nothing of course.

The NRA has always been a political arm of the Republican Party, but in 2012 it’s become more than that. It’s a group that does zero good and does a whole lot of bad. Imagine if it were to dissolve tomorrow—life would go on. The Second Amendment wouldn’t be scrapped from the books and hunters would still bag their game.

If it did dissolve tomorrow here’s what might happen: Spineless politicians would finally get the monkey off their backs and maybe, just maybe, pass legislation that, I don’t know, outlaws a person from buying 3,000 rounds of ammunition. But in the sick world of the NRA and its supporters, that kind of sensible legislation would “infringe” on the Second Amendment.

These kinds of corrupt ideology and twisted thinking are reason enough for the American people to rise up and crush the NRA. Make the organization as relevant as the Ku Klux Klan is today. Yes, this is just a pipe dream, and no I don’t really believe it will ever happen.

But we can all hope and dream, can’t we, that someday America will be free of the NRA.

Note: I have blogged in the past for the Huffington Post, but since the site was sold to AOL, it has become increasingly difficult for me to get my posts published. I tried to post this one to Huffington, but they declined to publish and gave me no reason. I can only guess it is because this post is critical of the NRA. It’s too bad the Huffington Post has now become the go-to site to read up on ways to get through menopause and seven reasons 50-year-olds aren’t having sex. Oh well.

Wow, excellent song. I’m rediscovering it. Here’s a fantastic live version.

Pitchfork has come out with its top 50 albums of 2011, and yet again their year-end list proves them to be at the forefront of alternative-music journalism. Hell, I wouldn’t be exposed to half of this stuff without them. But my problem with their list this year, however, is the fact that their the top ten is weighted heavily toward electronica, or, as I like to call that genre of music, “guilty until proven innocent.” One band guilty, and perhaps in need of a death sentence, is the Brooklyn-based Oneohtrix Point Never, which epitomizes nonsensical background non-music (and epitomizes the preposterous band name). Nonetheless, they’ve been the media’s darlings, with the New Yorker’s excellent critic Sasha Frere-Jones gushing over them (note: Sasha is an editor for whom I’ve worked at the Daily). Pitchfork placed that cacophonous jumble as the sixth best record of the year, a serious WTF moment.

Not surprisingly, my own top five will not include electronica; about the closest thing to that genre that I liked this year was the heavily hyped M83 record, Hurry Up We’re Dreaming, which is better than most electronica; M83 is more along the lines of the legendary My Bloody Valentine, which nicely melded buzz-saw guitar and doink-doink-doink electronica.

Forthwith, here’s my top five.

5. Smoke Rings for My Halo, Kurt Vile. A mellow guitarist-songwriter from Philadelphia who eschews the hip trappings of the alternative-music scene—though you wouldn’t think so by looking at him. In fact, a guy who looks like Kurt Vile just served me a coffee in Brooklyn.

4. Several Shades of Why, J Mascis. One of two instances where Pitchfork completely blew it; J’s record didn’t even make their “Honorable Mention” category. Mascis, founder and lead singer of the seminal band Dinosaur Jr., proves over and over that not only is he an incredible guitarist (perhaps one of the best living today), but he’s a thought-provoking songwriter and lyricist. One track I can’t stop listening to: “Too Deep.” Here’s the official video for “Is It Done.”

3. Past Life Martyred Saints, EMA. I began listening to this record in August, and it never gets boring. EMA, the moniker of Erika M. Anderson, formerly of the band the Gowns, has put out a blistering, haunting, guitar-driven gem, featuring such lyrical bon mots as, “Fuck California / You made me boring,” from the track “California.” Here’s the hardscrabble video for it.

2. Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Yeah, all the hype surrounding Eau Claire, Wisconsin, native Justin Vernon is legit and deserved. I’ve been a huge Bon Iver fan since I heard his first record For Emma Forever Ago. As a fellow Wisconsinite, it’s hard to not be supportive of his well-earned success (ugh, except the Bushmills ad). Vernon’s falsetto and song arrangement alone make this a phenomenal record, and Pitchfork christened it as the year’s best. I’m almost in agreement; every track on the record serves in its own folk-operatic milieu and is a sheer joy to listen to. Here’s the video for the excellent “Holocene”, which I gotta say reminds me a lot of the beautiful Sigur Rós video, Glósóli.

1. Bad as Me, Tom Waits. Just when you thought Tom Waits was settling down in the sunset years of his life, he comes out with a near-perfect record that both harkens back to his drunken-troubadour days and blazes a new trail of alternative music (and I’m using alternative here as it’s defined in the dictionary, not the genre). Simply put, Bad as Me just might be the best Tom Waits record ever, which is saying a fuckload, since he’s put out amazing record after amazing record. Here’s a video for “Satisfied,” one my favorites from the record. (Oh yeah, Pitchfork blew this one too. They gave it a middlingly positive review and omitted it from their best-of list.)

The current Republican-primary circus should remind Americans just how utterly misanthropic the Grand Old Party is. Whereas most presidential primaries usually had two clear frontrunners—e.g., Obama and Clinton in 2008, Edwards and Kerry in 2004, Bush and McCain in 2000—in the current GOP primary, the lead has changed more often than Herman Cain’s views on women.

To recap, Romney was considered the heir apparent in early 2011, not because he’s been a loyal Republican but because he basically came in second in 2008 to John McCain (“next up to bat”). And Romney is slick, smooth—a Ken doll with a load of cash. Then, all of a sudden, as if the entire GOP voting electorate was hibernating for the past dozen years, his support among crazy conservatives began plummeting. “RomneyCare” started to fly around, and then, in the summer, Michele Bachman won a completely inconsequential straw poll (which might as well be called a “bullshit poll”) in her home state of Iowa (a place where she erroneously claimed John Wayne was born, though her crack campaign team apparently didn’t realize there was a “Gacy” at the end of that Wikipedia search). Nonetheless, people instantly began questioning the hard-right bona fides of Mitt Romney. Did they forget he was the governor of über-liberal Massachusetts? Did they forget he crafted a health-care bill that was the blueprint for the much-maligned (among the idiot right) Obama health-care overhaul? Oh, wait…no, they didn’t forget. They didn’t know: Most of the GOP electorate shun the news media and knowledge in general. People who are smart are labeled “elites,” and to the GOP throng they’re no better than Moos-lem extremists.

So for a while at least, Bachmann basked in the spotlight. But she’s clearly obtuse and one with an intellect so dull that one might think she has some sort of learning disability—she’s borderline special-needs. Thus, just as quickly as she rose, she fell; who stole her thunder? Yet another spectacularly dim bulb: Texas governor Rick Perry. When he jumped into the race, it was almost like a battle among the candidates to see who was the dumbest. Perry did his damnedest to win that crown. Even before he made his notorious “one…two…and, the third…uh…” gaffe, he had been making insipid and false statements that would only appeal to the most lurdane American (e.g., “The first round of stimulus … created zero jobs” and “Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme).

But apparently, his debate gaffe was a bridge too far for the GOP electorate. Hey wait a minute, they said, he forgot the third governmental agency he was going to shit-can? That’s weird. Thus, the Perry tumble began.

But wait…have no fear, the Cain Train was arriving in the station. Though Herman Cain had been in the race for some time, he never caught fire until Perry gaffed his way into oblivion. But what sparked Cain’s rise? Fox News of course. Around the time Perry was beginning to flame out, the reliable right-wing nutjobs of Fox News were celebrating Cain’s preposterous 9-9-9 tax plan. Cain was like a stand-up comic looking for a gimmick, and he found one the right-wing establishment could talk about.

Thus, out of nowhere (seemingly), Cain rocketed in the polls. Why? Because he was eloquent? Sure, just ask the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board. No, he was given serious consideration because, quite simply, he hated himself. He was a self-loathing, misanthropic little man with an IQ even lower than that of Bachmann or Perry. The GOP electorate loves candidates who hate themselves, so they gleefully jumped aboard the Cain Train.

But of course, all intense crushes come to a bitter end. And I need’t rehash what brought Cain down. Ironically (or not), he was still flying high in the polls even after a half-dozen women came forward to accuse him of being a creepy sexual predator. Why weren’t his poll numbers cratering? Because the GOP voters love psychotic candidates who are off the rails. What were these supporters saying when Cain was accused of the numerous harassment claims? Rather than, “No, he couldn’t have done that,” there were likely saying things like “Cain harassed women? Fuck those bitches, they were probably liberals and deserved it.” That’s the typical GOP voter. (Look at Rush Limbaugh, the de facto head of the Republican Party—his misogyny is legendary.)

The Republicans will say, “Hey wait a second, Liberal Fuck, how can you say those things?” Here’s how. Remember what transpired during the copious GOP debates this year: Audiences cheered at such things as a man dying because he didn’t have health insurance; the jobless should blame themselves for being unemployed; and the record number of people put to death in Texas. When people cheer this kind of stuff, it’s very telling. It’s not the sign of normal, stable people. It proves the GOP, as a group, are a misanthropic set of extremists: an American Taliban, complete with their own “news” network supporting their every move.

So once marketing-whore Cain flamed out (and his candidacy was rightly labeled a “book tour” by the American Prospect), who was left to fill that void? Rick Santorum? Nope. Even the hard-right hate that guy: a completely unlikable, bitter, repulsive douchebag with little to offer anyone. The only one standing with right-wing cred was…hard to even write his name…Newt Gingrich, proving everything that’s old is new again.

Much has been of Gingrich’s crass, selfish, disgusting personal moral code (or lack thereof), but the media still gush over his alleged “intellect.” I guess that’s like saying [insert nasty despot here]‘s intelligent. One of the big lies spread by the “liberal” media is that Newt’s smart. Hey, he’s a former college history “professor” they say. At Yale? Harvard? Uh, no, West Georgia College. Being a professor doesn’t mean you’re smart.

So the GOP primary boils down to Romney v. Newt? Really? As a liberal, I very much hope Newt wins it (he’s already said he’s going to be the nominee), but the GOP electorate will have to ask themselves: Do we lose and hate ourselves and want to die (Newt)? Or do we lose and at least retake the party from the clutches of the tea party (Mitt). Either way, the Republicans will lose in 2012, because as much as the GOP wants the election to be about Obama, it’s going to be more about the sorry state of the Republican Party, a party that has been hijacked by the tea party and like-minded extremists. And with the economy in full (albeit slow) recovery, it’s looking to be the perfect storm for an Obama reelection.

I’ll leave you with an excellent Ali G. interview with Newt Gingrich several years back.

Ali G- Newt Gingrich by kamloue

No political figure in recent history has toyed and manipulated the media for strictly personal gain better than New Jersey governor Chris Christie. By simply not declaring his candidacy, he’s been able to attract the kind of media tsunami only dreamed of by actual candidates. (Anyone remember Michele Bachmann? I’m not even sure she does.)

But what’s behind all this media tumult? For one, the GOP apparatchiks—cf. William Kristol in the Weekly Standard among many other lesser intellects—are thoroughly horrified and perplexed by the current slate of Republican presidential candidates. While that’s a bad sign for the GOP, it’s a lucky break for Obama, who will undoubtedly have a herculean task ahead of him to win another term. Secondly, the draft-Christie movement and ensuing media frenzy are the result of a classic grass-is-greener scenario. Everyone loves the guy because he doesn’t have to take a stand on anything and can be viewed as above the petty political fray; it’s the political version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Christie is the antidote to Romney (too Mormon), Bachmann (too crazy), and Perry (too unstable), but what kind of antidote? What do GOP voters really know about Christie? Most of the Republicans pushing and pleading for him to enter the race have no idea what Candidate Christie will eventually stand for. They are seemingly drawn to his rotund aura for a few reasons: He hails from the liberal/socialist Northeast and, thus, potentially gives the Republicans a shot of winning New Jersey in the general election, a feat that hasn’t been accomplished since the Democrats had the unfortunate luck of nominating Michael Dukakis in 1988. Secondly, his bluster, bloviating, lack of manners, bull-in-a-china-shop mentality, and missing decorum play well among the party faithful. They might point to copious YouTube clips of Christie berating average New Jersey citizens, which might look pretty familiar as proven by the last few Republican debates—the rabid crowds who booed a gay soldier; howled in glee at the news of the death of an uninsured man; and cheered at the mere mention of the death penalty. The Republican voters in 2011-12 want to be viewed as the pugnacious schoolyard bullies, roughing up and stealing the lunch money from spineless liberal weaklings. (The crowd reactions at the debates alone only further prove that the meat-and-potatoes Republican Party is now chockablock with right-wing extremists.)

But at the end of the day, the Republican Party voters really have no idea who Chris Christie is; he’s more a cult of personality now than a politician of substance. And while many GOP voters may say in public just how much they adore the guy, when it comes time to actually pulling the lever in the voting booth in the primary, they’ll likely feel a whole lot more comfortable supporting a conservative extremist this time around than an unknown. They may argue that Christie’s the kind of candidate who needs quite a bit more time basting on the national stage, say, four more year’s worth of time.

So while the media ping-pongs, debates, and pontificates over “Will he” or “Won’t he,” Christie laughs all the way to 2016—and along the way he secretly hopes Barack Obama wins reelection. Should that happen, who’ll be the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP nomination—and possibly the presidency itself? Sure as hell not Mitt Romney—for a third time. The answer is, of course, none other than Chris Christie. So why on earth would he blow his load now and jump into the race only to (likely) lose to Obama? It’s a move that will sully his chances for 2016, possibly even torpedoing his candidacy entirely. Christie isn’t an idiot. He probably realizes it’s best for him to whisper sweet nothings in the ear of the media now, give lip service to the eventual Republican nominee, and then yearn deep in his heart for an Obama victory in 2012.

Imagine a guy who knows little about current events and politics. If he were to scan “the news”—web, print, TV—he’d be utterly convinced that President Barack Obama is a socialist, Christian-hating, America-bashing despot, recklessly hurtling the country toward insolvency. Every alleged “straight-news” article on politics out there now has the same trope: Politically, Obama is roadkill. Story over. The news articles floating about aren’t just found in the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and all of Fox News. These Obama-as-traitor pieces have begun to infiltrate left-leaning publications as well; they’re written with absolute certitude, à la: Obama is barely holding on by a thread. His reelection isn’t in doubt, it’s simply not going to happen, period. Even liberals and Democrats are abandoning ship. His approval ratings are lower than those of al-Qaeda. According to just about every political journalist out there, it’s game over. So-called centrist journalists like ABC’s Jake Tapper simply gushes at the Republican presidential candidates, tweeting after the last GOP debate, “Propes [sic] to all the candidates tonight #Reagandabte.” (Propes? Really. Tapper’s attempt to be hip? Let’s not got give him any props for that.) What everyone in the media seems to be saying is: No point in the campaign even happening; the Republican nominee is the guaranteed next president, on to 2016.

But of course, the reality has little resemblance to what’s being circulated in the media. This much is true: Obama’s presidency is flailing (not failing), much in the way most of George W. Bush’s was throughout his eight years and much like Clinton’s was before he stood firm and gave a beat-down to then Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So, yes, this much is true. And why is his presidency flailing? Because his advisors and team have failed miserably at honing the Obama message and explaining in detail what the president has done. The administration has allowed countless fallacies to seep into the mainstream media. (Which leads to another article for another time: What the hell is the matter with chief of staff Richard Daley? I thought Rahm was the problem, but clearly he wasn’t.)

I promise I won’t refight the health-care law, but look how the media has since portrayed the law: They call it big-government, socialized medicine. The reality? The full benefits of the law won’t be felt for some time to come, but it at least moved the ball forward; the fact is, it helped people get insurance. If anything it didn’t go far enough and was basically a giveaway to drug companies and insurance companies.

Another example: The media has let the right incorrectly define Obama as a big-government-loving liberal who’s a champion of “wealth redistribution” (a trope adored by Fox News simpletons Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume). That term “wealth redistribution” has all the delicious connotation loved by the tea-party Neanderthals. Imagine the scary government knocking on your McMansion, raiding your wall safe—absconding with your stacks of cash, bonds, and gold bullion, only to see your booty given away to nonwhite people. “From my cold dead hands,” indeed.

And let’s not forget the stimulus, the conservative’s and media’s favorite piñata. “Didn’t work,” they all say; “huge waste of money.” Did work. And wasn’t a waste of money. According to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the stimulus saved/created 3.6 million jobs.  But of course the tea-party crazies only see what they want to see as many of them have limited brain power. They hear, “government spending,” then tune out entirely. They don’t want to hear the truth. The reality is that the stimulus prevented a depression, the likes of which this country would have never seen before; without the stimulus, we’d probably be at 20+ percent unemployment. (That’s the reality we’d be living in if President McCain made good on his promise not to support it.)

Of course, me saying these things will only spur the nutty commenters from doubling down on their greatest hits: Obama is a socialist; Obama is a Muslim; Obama hates America. Come on commenters, you can do better than that. Wait, no you can’t.

So back to the title of this post: How does Obama win reelection? For starters, he hopes and prays that Rick Perry wins the GOP nomination. While no Republican in field right now could beat Obama, Mitt Romney has gone to great pains in reinventing himself as a not-insane conservative—though if you look at his past speeches in 2009 and 2010 about President Obama, Romney looks and sounds just as kooky as Michele Bachman and Rick Perry. Thus, say good-bye the days of Romney throwing red meat to conservatives. He’s shelved that tactic, at least for now. He’ll never out-conservative Bachman or Perry and he knows that. Just the fact the Romney was a governor of liberal, heathen Massachusetts is reason enough for the GOP stalwarts to question his right-wing cred.

So let’s assume Perry wins the nomination, and that’s a pretty solid prediction. His unabashed hatred for Social Security, for example, has only heightened his bona fides among the nutty tea partiers and hardcore GOP primary voters. His disdain of government and Washington will play well in flyover country. In essence, Perry is the poster child for today’s Republican Party: He’s an America-first religious zealot who’s intractable, inflexible; he doesn’t like homosexuals, he loves guns, he questions the validity of evolution, and he brands Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a traitor. All of these kinds of stances might have disqualified Perry from winning the GOP nomination just three years ago (and certainly in the era of Ronald Reagan, who, as scary as this sounds would probably be a conservative Democrat in 2011).

With Perry as the nominee, Obama and his team simply need to honestly brand Perry as a dangerous extremist. Something like, “Can a man who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank a traitor, and who advocates Texas seceding from the Union be trusted to hold the office of President of the United States?” It’s that simple. People aren’t unhappy with Obama and his policies as much as they’re unhappy with the pace of recovery. And all indications are that a President Perry would take the country back to ramant deregulation, potentially spawning another banking implosion. These are solid issues Obama can run on. Once it’s a two-man race, the dynamics change and it all hinges on…well…who’s the most hinged. And looking at the race through that prism, it’s Obama by a mile.

Fellow Wisconsin native Justin Vernon, aka Bon Iver, has come out with an excellent new record. And the video for “Holocene” is pretty good, but what stands out in it is the kid’s sweater. I want it.

Guided by Voices sound as excellent as ever. From the Pitchfork Music Fest.