HN user

deeg

1,927 karma
Posts10
Comments420
View on HN

I can't speak for Europe but in the US crime has been on a downward slope since the 90s, all while the percentage of immigrants in the US has gone up.

A few studies have shown that immigrants have a lower incidence of crime, especially undocumented ones. I don't know of any reputable studies (in the US) that show otherwise.

I think you're right. People have been fooled into thinking he's a populist. He uses some populist trappings but look, for example, what he's done about Epstein: he's running interference for billionaires, contradicting what he promised to do. His bombing of Iran is not populist, either.

I also think being a billionaire warps one's world view. Almost everybody around a billionaire sucks up to them just to get a sip from the firehose of their wealth. Its gotta be hard to stay grounded.

Supporting an illegal war would be a funny way to support democracy. Or maybe they believe in democracies that ignore their constitution.

I'm very progressive in some ways but I do think progressives make this particular problem worse, often with good intentions. Both sides are equally NIMBY but liberals also have:

- More environmental regulations that can be used by NIMBY.

- Attempts to solve the using various forms of rent control, which make it worse.

- Related: conservatives favor less regulation, which leads to more construction.

- Liberals hate for (or at least distrust of) landlords. Some of this is well-deserved but I've seen liberals oppose good policies because it will "help landlords".

Lastly, home owners--including liberals--like to see the value of their property go up and tend to favor policies that make it so. It would be nice if we could get people to stop looking at their homes as financial investments.

There was an interview with Joey (maybe in the greatest hits liner notes?) where he said at the beginning they were trying to cover their favorite songs from the 50s and 60s but they couldn't figure them out. So they wrote their own that were easy (my word) enough to play.

Imo they were terrible musicians but a world class band.

Maybe it was part of his schtick but johnny often bragged about not practicing. He wanted the concerts to be raw. The mistakes were part of the art.

I played guitar for a while and didn't have much trouble playing them and I was barely adequate at best.

The hardest song for me was California Sun. I just couldn't figure it out until I realized it had 4 chords instead of three. I learned later that it was a cover.

And that's the question, right? I like the ramones because they are loud, fast, and catchy. Is that enough to call it good music?

They were influential because they ushered in a new style of playing music. I remember reading an interview with The Clash and someone (Strummer?) mentioned that when the Ramones first played in london it was like a bomb going off. They were amazed that a band could play so fast and they all went home and tried to replicate it.

Originality is part of it. Today a band that sounded exactly like the ramones probably wouldn't go far because it's already been done.

Its a fascinating topic for me.

If the Ramones put their name on all sorts of merchandise does that make them sellouts?

I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians.