OK, this one’s specifically dedicated to John Lam. Whenever we talk about JayceLand, he frequently comments that I don’t blog “properly” — often posting an entry for — say today — on next Wednesday. So this one’s for you, John: it’s 2:59 a.m. and after the event about which I’m about to blog. …

So I went to Monty’s Krown (875 Monroe Ave.) earlier. I arrived in time to catch just a song-and-a-half of Jesse Sprinkle. I liked what I heard, but don’t feel confident opining further due to insufficient experience. Next was Burning Daylight who are really swell. Jesse plays drums in this band — and I met lead-singer/guitarist Nick and bassist Tim afterward. I generally stand by my database-stored comment from December 21, 2006 at the Bug Jar: “unremarkable bar-rock except when they get more punk-rock”. [No offense, guys: let me qualify ...]

I had a great time. I considered heading to The Bug Jar (219 Monroe Ave.) for the metal and metal-like show featuring (among others) Sulaco (featuring some friends of mine) but instead, I opted to get a pint or two (or three) at Monty’s Krown (875 Monroe Ave.) instead and enjoy some, well, bar-rock. Burning Daylight does a fine job with a mix of [mostly] originals and [some] covers in a bar-rock/punk-rock style. I mean, what more can I say? Have you been at a bar where some band was playing and had a drink or two, and noted, “hey, these guys are pretty good.”? It’s that kind of personal experience that really doesn’t carry over well to radio-play or other popular, substantive fame. It’s just … well … nice. With notably-sexceptional exceptions like “Black Soul, Black Heart”, it’s not the kind of thing you’re going to get nagging in your head. But that one song can keep you coming back.

Heck, maybe it’s whatever it was that Ali and her friend were so impressed that the band played for them. Or maybe it’s just that Tim’s this kind of faux-Canadian [in the "gosh, aren't those Canadian folks polite and kind" kind of way] Buffalo … umm … resident. Or that I owe Nick, Tim, and Jesse a drink [and $1.33 more each] for giving me their CD (Jesse 2x for supplying his personal-favorite own CD in addition).

In conclusion, thanks: you guys gave me a great time (even despite that poor dude who got carried away by ambulance for whatever reason … at least it wasn’t body-bag). So when you’re at your regularly-paying day-jobs, know that I thought your time was worth its while. Sure, your songs aren’t on ‘BER regularly [or are they?: I'm so irritated by the Guisto-inspired BOCES-training-esque 'play what the people want' kind of crap that I barely listen anymore].

But whatever: play live and there’s someone there who’ll love it.

Ali and I went to The Little (240 East Ave.) to see Doubt. It’s a fascinating film which, although obviously different from the play (which neither of us saw), is extremely strong. I suppose it could only help that the film was written and directed by the original playwright, John Patrick Shanley. The story primarily follows Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the minister of St. Nicholas in the Bronx in 1964, and Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), the principal of the affiliated school. Flynn takes an interest in one of the students: Donald Muller — a black boy in an otherwise all-white school. Sister Aloysius fully believes Flynn molested Donald and intends to ensure he [Flynn — duh] is punished.

The audience is left to their own beliefs to ascertain whether Flynn molested Donald. I found this fascinating, as I maintained his innocence throughout the film but realized afterward that I could experience the film again completely differently by believing he was guilty.

Sister Aloysius is someone who would act to destroy based on their beliefs. I think it’s a particular kind of logic that permits this: believing that one’s belief alone is more true than having no factual basis — perhaps a manifestation of the nature of faith (although in the case of religious faith, it’s more about filling a gap in that which is knowable). The trouble is, there is an element of circular justification: if she succeeds in destroying Flynn’s reputation, she feels justified, but by putting her own reputation on the line in making such an accusation, she has no choice but to fight to destroy Flynn’s reputation no matter whether he was guilty or not.

Sister James, meanwhile, acts as a foil to Sister Aloysius by believing in the kindness of others. Sister Aloysius’ long-time experience as disciplinarian provides her only with evidence of sin and wrongdoing. So is it Sister James’ naiveté or Sister Aloysius’ limited perspective that is at fault?

For myself, I find that when factual evidence is not available, belief in kindness is the more fruitful path. As is the case with Sister Aloysius, believing more in evil makes you a destructive force in the world whereas believing more in good opens up the possibility of being constructive.

But equally important is that it makes you happier to believe that people are generally kind.