Big Scrub TX

LINK

I'm looking for some help here. A few years back, I made an overt attempt to "get into" Miles Davis. It just didn't click. What are some good entry points to try again?

Falls into the category for me of "I enjoy some of the stuff when it comes on, but would never consider actually spending money on any aspect of it - recorded or live".

Best song is I Won't Back Down

Friends tell me the Mike Campbell autobio is must-read.

2nd fav is live at Concert for George doing "I Need You".

youtubemusic

quote:

---

More people die in Europe annually due to heat than are killed by guns in America

---

Heat gets all the press, but cold kills way more people.

quote:

---

My inlaws live in a $1.2M home 3.5mi away from this sh*t.

---

I mean, get what you're saying, but 3.5 miles is far in a city context. e.g. Tony's Seafood in BR is straight hood. There's plenty of nice areas within 3.5 miles of that. And this place in Seattle is nowhere near as bad as BR's hood.

The very worst parts of Harlem are much closer than 3.5 miles to some of the toniest city addresses in the world. etc etc

I'm not disputing that Seattle has ruined itself.

I'm just now realizing it's Europa and not Conference!!! Man, AI really screwed me this time. WTF

When I went to bed last night, I asked it to lay out what Sunday's final day looked like in order for Sunderland to make Europe. It said:

Beat Chelsea

Liverpool no worse than draw

Man City must beat Villa

...and this was JUST TO MAKE CONFERENCE!!

It turns out it somehow stupidly just ignored the Brighton/Bournemouth situation and I was over here ignorantly pulling for City. Crazy.

When Obama was enduring the crazy flurry of predicted racial violence and assassination attempts (predicted to be) directed at him, this guy was too young to participate.

Pinkerton
Dirt
With the Beatles
Ride the Lightning
Peace Sells
Killers

quote:

---

Trump has more stock Trades in 3 months than congress did in all of 25

---

The relevant metric is how does it compare to presidents in past years. My understanding is that it's many multiples of those numbers. If that's true, I need a better explanation than "it's index funds in a blind trust".

quote:

---

The fundamental reason this disconnect exists—and why it feels like the public narrative from the government completely contradicts the courtroom reality you are reading about today—comes down to a highly technical legal distinction in how Scotland prosecutes multi-person street altercations.

When political figures like John Swinney and Police Scotland made their original, sweeping public statements dismissing the "self-defense against an attack" narrative as fake news, they were speaking strictly about the initial legal status of the 12-year-old girl and the couple she confronted.

The adults are on trial now because of how the investigation shifted once prosecutors had to charge the entire incident, rather than just the girl with the weapons.
1. The Legal Separation of the Charges

The government and police originally framed the narrative around a single data point: Did the Bulgarian couple attack or harass these children first?

After reviewing the CCTV, Police Scotland stated they found no evidence of an initial assault by the adults, which is why the girl was immediately charged with carrying offensive weapons.

However, the legal standard for a public official to say "there is no evidence of an unprovoked attack" is entirely different from the standard a fiscal fines or a prosecutor uses to look at a chaotic street fight. When a confrontation escalates to the point where multiple people are yelling, pushing, or recording each other, the crown rarely charges just one side. They charge all active participants with broader public order offenses.
2. What the Adults Are Actually on Trial For

The adults—both the individuals from the couple and potentially older youths involved in the wider scrum—are not on trial for "attacking a schoolgirl" in the way the initial viral tweets claimed. Instead, they are facing standard breach of the peace, violent disorder, or obstruction charges that stem from their conduct during the escalating argument.

The headline you saw ("Girl tells trial she pulled knife and axe after man pushed her") is standard courtroom testimony. In any trial involving a street brawl:

The defense for the adults will argue they were reacting to a child brandishing lethal weapons.

The witnesses (including the youths involved) will testify under oath that they felt threatened or were physically shoved before the weapons came out.

The Source of the Public Cynicism

This is exactly why the public feels gaslit by the official response.

When the government rushes to the microphones to declare a viral video "100% fake news" in order to calm political tensions, they choose to paint the incident in stark, black-and-white terms: innocent bystanders vs. an aggressive youth.

But the court system doesn't operate on political messaging. When the case actually reaches a jury months later, the messy, gray-area reality comes to light: an aggressive confrontation where adults did push or engage with minors, and minors did pull weapons. The politicians get their clean press release on day one, while the public is left to reconcile that narrative with the messy cross-examinations happening in the courtroom today.

---

Is this true?