Smells Like Stagnation

The other day, my sister got home from school (as she tends to do once school is done), and she put on some post-punk pop album. I'm not a big fan of the genre, though some of it is alright. There was a part where the vocals dropped out and the guitar and drums were vamping, just tossing a rhythm around. Then, out of this stupid song most likely about a girl (I ignored the words) came the familiar riff that begins Smells Like Teen Spirit. What? Grunge, in my pop? It's more likely than you think.

I wondered at that for a while. The riff is reasonable, considering that Green Day wrote a song to the tune of Downtown and Catch 22 recorded their own take on Sloop John B, but this band didn't seem to be doing it for nostalgia's sake (Green Day's Waiting), nor because they thought it was hilarious (Catch's Sloop John B). They were taking themselves seriously, ripping out something that had blown people away when it started. If these kids (I use the term loosely, as they are likely at least as old as I) had been playing pop when Kurt Cobain had unleashed his madness on the world, they would have been at least a little terrified by Heart Shaped Box and other songs, where the words' sound was often more important than their meanings. How did the extreme of less than twenty years ago become the mainstream of today?

Nirvana released Nevermind in 1991, and Cobain started ripping us to pieces. From his youth of vandalism to piss off intolerant ignoramuses until his death (suicide or murder, it's certainly not something I know enough about to take a stand), he did things that made everyone uncomfortable. The genre title of "grunge" implies filth and things of a vile nature, and it became a movement as much as a style. Garage bands had something new to imitate; with Nirvana's sound being what it was, clean guitar riffs and smooth transitions weren't the order of the day. With Cobain's death, anyone who didn't know his music at least heard something about his life. Whether that was Love's side that he was suicidal or most everyone else's that she was kinda nutty and he wasn't the type to blow himself away, that depended on who you heard and who you believed. Beyond Nevermind's success and the acclaim gained by subsequent live and studio albums, Cobain dying gave one more push to Nirvana's fame.

Now, everyone's looking for a new sound. Some bands give us brand new ideas (Gogol Bordello, Streetlight Manifesto) and are promptly ignored, while others give us repetitive boring drivel (All American Rejects, Maroon 5) and are pushed by labels to the point where not owning the albums is seen as unusual. Every single band, though, is trying to be Nirvana, every singer is trying to be Kurt Cobain. Not that they want to sound at all like Nirvana or Cobain, not in the least. Most bands are convinced that they're avoiding sounding like anybody else or even that they're succeeding. Forgive me if I don't consider My Chemical Romance to be anything innovative and pass over a Bullet for my Valentine album in favor of one of Electric Six's. Newness is what everyone strives for, but those who succeed don't get any measure of success. It's the conformity vs. individualism argument in another form. If you go outside the box, the music industry is set up to let you fail unless you get a fan base without them.

Some bands are tiring of this system. Independent music is coming into vogue, but does that invite creativity? I don't think so, with a genre appearing for acoustic guitars and weak poetry called "indie rock." That's what people want from independent bands. That's the style of today. Where's the band that started it out? Where is indie rock's Nirvana? Who do they have to represent them as Cobain does grunge? Certainly there are figureheads, but there is nothing that inspires imitators or gives conservative figures a chill like like Heart Shaped Box. Nothing shocks and appalls now, because we want to look cool. If we're terrified of our music and relish that fear, that's not right. We need to be the crowd that sees Scream and gets bored, the people who read Stephen King and fall asleep midsentence. Fear is out, half lidded eyes are in. Gone is the desire to scream incoherently into a microphone, to pound out angry minor chords on a fuzzed guitar and cry onstage while your fans wish they could do the same. Now screaming incoherently is organized into metal and screamo, fuzzy guitars are classic rock wannabes, crying is for emo bands. We, as a society, just don't know what to do with our emotions, so we categorize them.

If everyone would get angry for an hour, all together, we'd all close ourselves in our rooms and avoid other people, because that's how we are. The world would be silent for that hour. Wait, what's that? Oh, the Nirvana derivative modern singers would be yelling into a mic hooked into their iBook, hoping this song would be the one that people would love. These singers fall into every genre. Singers in bands have retained that love for loud, angry noise. It's what makes us animals, and it's what terrifies us about ourselves. On iTunes you can rate Nevermind and other groundbreaking works in a scale of 1-5. People say things like "the 2nd Greatest Alternative Rock Album EVER!" and "I recommend Breed, Lounge Act, and the 90's anthem Smells Like Teen Spirit." What happened? This music was terrifying to everyone, and that's why it was devoured by its fans. What would Kurt Cobain think if, when writing these songs, he knew that Nevermind would be declared to be "The album that started grundge [sic]"? Now people listen to it with blank minds and faces; it's just something else that was good in the past. Popularity defines quality to most of those in my generation. Sure, it's amazing work. Cobain was a creative master. Why can't people understand that and accept it, and then move on?

Since then, numerous genres have risen and fallen. There have been other innovations in music. These have been largely ignored by the youth. Nirvana marks the end of creative music that gained much popularity. Most everything since then has been drivel. And now we can't even get something extreme and painful, because that's already been done, we're bored with it, pass the Death Cab for Cutie. The worst part is that there's no real cure. Creativity in music as we know it can't go any further.

How Far Can I Get?

Yesterday, I checked the mail. Bills, bills, catalogs, magazine. I ignored it all and tossed it on the dining room table. This afternoon, I was bored, so I checked through it. That magazine turns out to be Rolling Stone, addressed to me, so either I have a subscription or Rolling Stone is stalking me. Whatever, it's a music magazine (give or take), so I start looking through. Interviews, alcohol ads, naked women covering their bare breasts, it's all there. I get to the end, and they have their charts. Top ten iTunes downloads, top 40 albums, etc. There are 80 names on the page. Some I recognize, some I don't. Out of curiosity, I look through to see how many of those songs I've heard and how many artists on the page have a CD in my collection. Answer? One album, by the guy who did the 39th of the top 40 albums, Michael Buble (I'd accent that "e," but I don't honestly know how). I bought that album out of amusement at his name; one of my friends has the nickname of Michael Bumble, and it was too close to pass up. I listened to it one time, and then tossed it aside for Straylight Run. Oh, wait, that's not the only thing I've got. From their "From the Vault" section, I have 2 CDs by the #7 artist, Chuck Berry. So I'm kinda hip in 1972, I guess.

What's that say for a wannabe musician? I'm 19, and I hate what the kids like. I don't like to hear it, I don't like to play it, I don't like it. There's somebody on here named "Soulja Boy," and just the name annoys me. How can I hope to make something that anybody'll want to listen to? Well, that's actually the easy part. Everyone wants to say they listen to "everything," which is what I hear most often. I usually drop John Coltrane's name at that point and people retract their statement. That's not the point, though.

In this technological age, music has shifted. Rap and country are having a major surge in popularity, with an easy to define reason. Some people want to look ahead, and rap often does that, with social minded words and a rhythm that's easy to dance to. Some want to hold back, and country is the medium of choice, giving a simple musical style lyrics that sound like those of everyday people instead of superstars. Rock is in a slump, mainly because there's very little new happening in the genre, much to my dismay. Jazz is dying quickly, again because where can you go from John Coltrane, Herbie Hancock, and Dizzy Gillespie? Rap and country don't need to expand further, as the style is established and hasn't had any major changes in recent history.

What does this mean for rock, though? Is it to die in a screamo metal orgy, as is the appearance of modern rock? I think not. Classic rock is coming back a bit, with teenagers playing Guitar Hero and realizing that there was music before Avenged Sevenfold that still would blow you away. Some bands attempt to lay down this nostalgic feel and bring old and young together to enjoy their music. The Black Keys bring back a sound similar to much of Led Zeppelin's catalog, and astonishing success has resulted. Death Cab for Cutie recalls Bob Dylan's songs, simple vehicles for poetic messages. Bruce Springsteen shows no signs of slowing, and he's certainly been around longer than most modern artists. There is, even, innovation in rock's simple boundaries; Bang Camaro pulls out sounds like an 80s hair metal band in a modern rock scene to great results (of course, 20 people doing anything loud and powerful usually gets decent reception). Gogol Bordello pulls in gypsy influences and puts out "gypsy punk," as it has been called. These bands, though, don't achieve the success that Lynyrd Skynyrd or Black Sabbath reached (though Death Cab has gotten some decent press). They don't come near Fergie, nor to Gwen Stefani. Rock is on its death bed, and the public seems alright with letting it die.

What needs to happen is a break from what we've got. I don't mean cutting out anything that rock has become; emo, metal, hardcore, and the like all need to make this jump. Right now, CDs are released, and that's the main form of musical output for any group. iTunes and similar systems are overtaking CD sales, but it's really the same exact system with a different look. This system limits artists. That's alright if you want a 4 minute rap or country song, but bands like Rush, with songs up to around 20 minutes, can't thrive with the current system. How to break? I can't say. What we have is a standard, and cutting off from a standard with which everyone is cool is hard, if not near impossible. I can't begin to outline a plan of attack. All I know is that this path will lead to nowhere, and I really don't want that.

The Problem Is in Recognizing the Problem

George Bush is not a man I support. According to polls countrywide, his average approval rating has fallen below 40%. Even still, he is the president of the United States. He's been voted in and, unless removed from office, he's got about 18 months remaining in his term. I say this so that you'll realize my position and the national position and Bush's position.

Secondly, Iraq. The United States invaded Iraq a few years back, much to my dismay, and has remained until now, also to my dismay. When the war began, it wasn't so poorly supported. Now, its approval is lower than Bush's, by most estimations. It's been stated by both sides that the war has gone wrong and things need to be changed. The Democratic party calls for troop withdrawal on some scale, and the Republican party advocates more troops. These are facts.

Now, on to a current event, something that I find bewildering. Comparisons have been made between Iraq and Vietnam with increasing frequency as time has gone on, and Bush has now made his statement comparing the two. The previous statements have said that it's a quagmire, to use the politically chosen word, and that continuing to fight is foolish and we should get out before it gets worse. Bush's statement says that if we leave, we will cause turmoil.

He says that when the United States left Vietnam, it harmed the region. I would like to provide an argument against this. When the US military was in Vietnam, random shootings were not uncommon. The people shot at the soldiers, the soldiers shot at the people. The situation was far from ideal. Americans thought of the Vietnamese as "Gooks," assuming them to be lower in the food chain than we mighty soldiers. This racism led to increasing violence against innocent people as American soldiers had more and more trouble defeating the Vietnamese who were actually the enemy. As time continued, atrocities became more and more common.

If one would take a moment, please, and kindly look to Iraq. Since the beginning of the invasion by US troops, there has been Iraqi resistance. The soldiers started off afraid of the people, these Muslims, who were taken as a group of fanatics filled with hate. Racism again is at play. The soldiers of the US army have defeated the solid opponent, and are now fighting against guerrillas and suicide bombers. Very similarly to Vietnam, atrocities have been showing up with great frequency and soldiers are getting off with just a slap on the hand.

Now, Bush would like us to think that if we left Iraq there would be chaos. Look at all the good we do, training the Iraqi police force (haven't we been doing that for several years now?), policing the streets (using soldiers terrified of every woman and man who may want to kill them), and performing tactical operations to rout terrorists (some of whom happen to end up being whole families in which the women are raped and the men are killed). I'm glad to know that medieval standards of progress are being applied. At least now we know where we're aiming.

So I say have at it, Bush! Have your conquest! All I request is that you don't put my name down as part of the country that supported this war. I would like to submit that California is not part of this war. Please, do me that favour, and I'll let you shoot at whoever you like for as long as you want. Just leave me out of it. Thank you, sir.

From Here on Out

My name is Erik Brenner. I was born on May 22, 1988. I have several pseudonyms that I use online. The posts before this date were all from a small forum. The forum is now down, and I have gathered the posts to this blog. I plan to write at least once every two weeks, hopefully more often than that. As you can see from the preceding posts, I write on any subject that interests me at a particular time. Through these posts I hope to figure through situations on my own and help you, my loving reader, to do the same. Thank you for reading, and I hope you'll enjoy what's to come.

Football to Improve Life

I bitch and moan about social injustices and stuff, and this is another of those times. If you're sick of my ranting already, then please skip this. There's an event that most people know of called the FIFA World Cup. It's a football (not the American kind) tourney, involving most of the world. There's another event that you might not have heard of called the Homeless World Cup. Where FIFA footballers get paid boatloads and live in fancy houses and marry Spice Girls, the homeless don't. These are disadvantaged people getting a chance for the world to recognize that, while disadvantaged, they're still people and need to be treated as people. I'm putting the website down below this, so you can go and check it out and maybe help out with the cause. I know I'm going to give as much help as I can this summer, hopefully being able to make some money to support the cause. Homelessness is seen as almost a crime against the rest of a community, and that needs to stop. And before people say that I should spend money on charities instead of this, that's full of shit. Sure, it may not help homeless people directly, but if we can improve the world's opinion of the homeless it'll end up helping more than anything else.

http://www.homelessworldcup.org/

Go forth, and do good for humanity!

Speak Out or Keep Your Peace!

I go to NYU, one of the most influential universities in the United States. It's a center of culture, a place of progress. The population is overwhelmingly liberal; there is an incredibly strong gay community, there are protests for this and that event constantly. I say this not to brag, but to show you why I'm bothered by my peers.

Today, there was an anti-war rally. For those not in the know, this is about the Iraq war and the coming Iran war. I don't want war, in either scenario. As such, when I heard about said protest I was ecstatic. I'm a freshman in college protesting the same war I was protesting when I was a freshman in high school. I marched on San Francisco; estimates of 200,000 people in that march were made. We marched, we protested. It was a peaceful protest. Now, four years and six-hundred fifty thousand dead bodies later (a rough estimate), I protest again. Instead of 200,000, though, we had about forty people. NYU, with all its progressivism, has 45,000 students. There were about forty people, and about a quarter of those came from their high school. Two were from a middle school. 45,000 people, and all we can muster is thirty for a protest of a war that has been proven time and time again to have been based on falsehoods. Thirty students. That's one high school class full. The NYPD were there; if there was a riot, they would be prepared. There were about as many of them as there were of us. If this is how people feel, then that's fine, I suppose.

I'd like to offer this thought: if you don't protest a war in which innocent people are shot, you support it. You support a war in which, just weeks ago, a girl was raped by three United States Marines while her family was shot in the next room. She was, of course, shot immediately after. The marines are looking to get off with a wrist slap. Do you support that? If you don't protest, that's the message you give Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby and Rice and all those in power who make war for political purposes. It makes me wonder that if a draft were instated, many of you would say that it's unfair when your number came up. There would be mass protesting of how the war is unjust and our leaders are corrupt. Democrat and Republican alike would protest. Why? Surely not because we oppose violence; 300 is a high grossing movie, violent crime is (as always) high, Grand Theft Auto 3 is one of the most popular games ever to come out. No, it's because so many people are content to be sheep up to the point where somebody forces them to do something. If you don't oppose the war, you're supporting it. If a draft comes, shut your fucking mouth and get in line for the buzz cut. And don't give me bullshit about having to go to class, having to go to work. If you're in high school, middle school, anything, get out and be heard! If you can't get to a rally, protest, whatever, then write a letter to your congresspeople. Write a letter to the white house. Take an hour out of your life and do something, however small, to make the politicians accountable for their actions.

This next statement is not an endorsement of Michael Moore. I don't approve of his methods, I don't approve of his appearance as a "common man," I don't approve of him. One thing that I think he did right was when, in Fahrenheit 9/11, he approached congresspeople and questioned them about their children and offered information about the armed services. These people have no more to lose in sending their children off to war than the impoverished do. In fact, they have less to lose; those with no other means to support themselves can lose everything from an injury. The government is getting worse every day in dealing with our veterans; it's harder to get treatment, harder to get welfare, harder to get heard. What we need is for anyone who'd bitch about a draft to get off their lazy fucking asses and do something. If you'd complain in the slightest about being chosen to go fight in this war, speak up. If you don't speak now, you might lose your rights to speak up in a few years when you're in the military with a drill master yelling in your face.

I don't write this to start a debate. If you agree with Bush, then you're set. If you wouldn't mind being drafted, or if you're going to sign up for the armed services of your own volition, then please disregard this. I'm writing this for anyone who bitches privately but won't go out in public and yell, march, organize. I'm writing this to try to wake some people up. Apathy is lethal, and I don't want to die because of yours.

Suicide as a Method for Freedom?

See, you have to understand a little about me to realize that I might do things some people consider sociopathic, but I have reasons for doing what I do and they're usually based on emotions and the way things work in the world. I don't enjoy when people do things that are both illogical and hypocritical. Running away to join the circus? Awesome, as long as you don't spend time ragging on the circus. Hating a job, but doing it anyway because you need the money? That's hypocrisy, but it's sure not illogical. That's basic logic, eh? So, with that in mind, I start my rant.

I was online the other night. A friend of mine who lives far from me starts a conversation. Hello, hello, how are you, I'm fine, you, I'm not so good, why? I ODed and my stomach feels worse than it usually does. That's where I stopped for a minute. So somebody with whom I have very little contact tells me that they're trying to kill themselves. That's part A of my thought train. This isn't new; this problem has been around for a while with this person. So part of me, right off the bat, is thinking "OLD NEWS!" Then comes the other part of my brain. It's asking why the "hurts more than usual" is even coming into play.

When one is going to off one's own person, that means a dedication to death. Am I far off on this thought? If you're going to OD, that means you're ready to die. As nobody's actually died and been able to tell people about it (I don't find most ghost sightings to be all that reliable), we don't know what comes after. There might be an immense amount of pain involved with the actual dying, there might be about zero. We don't actually know and may never be entirely sure. Now, with that in mind, we can quite accurately predict the amount of pain any particular suicide method may instill in one's body. Example: razor blades down one's arteries will cause as much as a cut on one's body; no more pain than would happen if you got your arm cut in a knife fight would occur. That's logic, correct? If you hang yourself, it's not only the pain of your throat being crushed, it's also the terror at the lack of air. Unless, of course, you fall far enough to break your neck. This is all pretty logical; no interpretation needed. So, when you take an overdose on a drug of any sort, there's a certain amount of pain to be expected.

That's the thoughts that went through my head when the person said that it hurt more than usual. The basic line of reasoning ended in "is the pain such a surprise?" I think I asked something like that; I don't know, I accidentally erased my conversation history folder this morning, mistaking it for another. Oops. So I said something like that and the person seemed not to appreciate my comment. I said that if the pain is hard to deal with, the person should tell their mom. The response I got was that the person didn't want their mom to flip out. A distraction, I was told, was what was desired. Just get the brain off the pain, you see? I saw. I didn't much care. If you're going to do something like that, you are going for a package deal. Anybody see Aladdin? ZOMG SPOILERS! When unimaginable power is obtained, one is enslaved until freed willingly. You get great, but you get terrible. It's the way things go. Death may be freedom, but it sucks to get it. If a person can't take that suck, then they're not willing to die and should immediately stop it, seeking help. If you're going to be bothered by your situation and not do anything, though you have the power to control it, then it's your loss, your problem to deal with. Deal with it one way or the other.

Christmas, Love, and All the Rest

I grew up in a small town in California. It's not very diverse there. It's quite closed off from the outside world; there are people who've never left California, though it's two hours away. This town is extremely Christian, God fearing, that sort. You know to what I refer. I am not religious. If you've spoken to me on the subject of religion, you'll note that I'm closer to being Jewish than Christian, and that's a pretty long shot. I wanted to give that as background so the following won't seem confusing. Well, it might, but I've done something to avoid that.

Yesterday, I was talking with a friend of mine about going home. I asked when she was heading home for Christmas break. She got highly offended. Apparently it's not "Christmas break." Winter break is appropriate, as is holiday break. It's the whole Jesus birthday thing. I promptly let her know that I'm not a Christian, and that I find her claim that Christmas break is offensive to be complete and utter crap. My evidence is as follows.

All people in the world live on December 25th. Well, some die, but that doesn't matter for this point of argument. Assume that 1/2 of the population is Christian: it's an exaggeration, but assuming that helps both sides because one is further the minority and oppressed and one is further the majority and thought correct. So 1/2 of the world is celebrating Christmas. Happy birthday, big J! The other half isn't. Are they not alive on that day? No, they're alive, they go about a daily routine, get up, brush teeth, shower, eat, do stuff, that sort of thing. Do Jews picket Christian houses saying that the day shouldn't be called Christmas? Do you see Muslims outside of K Mart trying to get a petition signed to have the store stop carrying Christmas items? No. No you do not. It's semantics; I call it Christmas, you call it December twenty-fifth.

How about Easter? Does it boil your buzzard when that day comes around, Jews? How about you, Muslims? Hindus getting bothered by the day being called Easter? I dunno about you, but I find calling something that's not the Christian calender's new year a new year is offensive; Chinese New Year is out! Down with holidays! Religious freedom my ass!

When I said this to her, she said that I should consider what I say; some people aren't as tolerant of offensive things as she. Well, aren't I lucky! I'm so lucky that people are bothered when I call a break an arbitrary name! Habit from my youth comes and bites me in the ass, and I'm lucky!

If you feel offended that somebody calls the break "Christmas break," I ask you to please keep your opinion in your head. I don't say don't voice it, I just ask that you consider what you're really protesting. If you're Jewish, you can get a couple of days off school every day due to religious holidays. If you're Muslim, same thing. If you're Christian, you don't get squat. I'm apathetic in terms of religious; what do I get? Crap, that's right, nothing! If you don't like it being called "Christmas break," then stop taking days off for your own holidays. Is it the fault of anybody who celebrates Christmas that you don't? No. Is it the fault of anybody who celebrates Christmas that the holiday falls on a break, due to the schools in our system being based on a Christian background (I won't deny that there is strong Christian influence in the world).? Nope, again. So, how about those offended realize that what they're protesting is stupid, in and of itself.

Religious tolerance is lacking in our world. Start small; if somebody celebrates Hanukkah and you celebrate Christmas, give them what you think of as a Christmas gift so they can open it for Hanukkah. If you are a Hanukkah celebrator, give your friends their Hanukkah gift for Christmas. If you don't celebrate either, give as your friends would want. Say it's a gift for their chosen holiday, even if you don't follow that belief. It's not too hard to do.

Oh, and if any Jews are staking out Christian homes or Muslims are planning a K-Mart petition, let me know. That stuff would be awesome on Youtube.

Down the hill, Down the hill, Thousands of Russians

Fucking Russians. Mother. Fucking. Russians. I'm not being prejudicial here! Seriously, I've got a few Russian friends! I flirt with a hot Russian girl! That doesn't change the fact of Mother. Fucking. Russians.

Over the past year. One year. Not more than one. One. Russia has killed a dissenting journalist. They poisoned a dissenting ex-KGB spy with fucking Polonium. Beta particles up the wazoo, or yin-yang, if that's more your style. Thirdly, they said that, were there a giant asteroid heading toward our lovely planet, they would blow the thing out of the sky with nukes. Do you get why I say Mother. Fucking. Russians.?

This stuff is all out of a James Bond movie, I'm sure. They finally got down to it and have watched From Russia with Love and have outfitted all female government spies with poison-spike shoes. They're just waiting for the British secret service to come crashing in. That's what all this has to be! If it's not, then what is going on in their heads? Is it that the Cold War between the USA and the USSR is over so they have to kill somebody else? Could it be possible that Russia really IS like James Bond books and movies would have us believe? Is Zombie Hitler really in charge? Will Putin use his black belt for nefarious deeds?

Wait! No! The spy was killed to spread dissent in Russia! Wait, wait, something's wrong here. Isn't Russia that country that has had several bloody revolutions in the past century? Seems like that's the one...wasn't that the place that had a horribly oppressive government for much of this time? That seems like a spot-on statement, too. (Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the alternatives are paradise.) Doesn't it seem like, if people are satisfied with this government at all, a spy being killed wouldn't cause much trouble? Sure, sure, it's not a good thing, but if the Russian government killed this spy, that means they killed one dude. Any of the USSR leaders can be honestly said to have killed more than that one. Heck, if the USSR didn't fall apart under Stalin, this shouldn't do much.

That, of course, is logic. The Russian government has decided that, instead of just saying, "Yeah, we put Polonium in his food so he'd die," they'll claim it wasn't them and say that it's somebody with nefarious ends in store for the Ruskies. Right. An ex-spy dying. That's going to topple Mother Russia. For ninja's sake, he wasn't a politician! If Putin gets poisoned, I might agree, but this is an ex-spy. Ex as in not any more! Spy as in secret operative! The fact that he died shouldn't even be acknowledged by Russia. They should say that it's sad that this man, with whom nobody in Russian politics knew on more than a friendly level, died. They should have just tried letting this slip under the radar. What stopped that? Did he have his KGB Decoder Ring on? His official I'm a Fucking KGB Spy papers were in his jacket pocket? It doesn't matter if a spy is currently a spy or not! Spies are not a group you generally consider respectable. James Bond excluded, of course. And then only when played by Sean Connery.

So what are we left with? A dead spy and Russia trying to say that it's not them that did it. So, Russia, please answer us this; who DID do it? If it's somebody trying to topple the government, they're either a dissenter from Russia or somebody who doesn't like Russia at all. That could be...well, most people would be possibly in that category. We can eliminate one, though! Assuming that the food was secretly poisoned, Alexandra Litvinenko was very likely not the poisoner! We have one less subject!

As for the blowing shit up with nukes, Russia really needs to chill a little. I mean, more than they already do. It's cold in Russia, as I understand it. But back to asteroids. If they shot an asteroid with nuclear weapons, it would likely be destroyed as a unit. That means that the one big asteroid is now a bunch of smaller ones. Nice job, Russia. Now, instead of a single strike, there will be strikes all over! Nicely done! Best part of it? Those strikes will carry radioactive particles! It's like a worldwide dirty bomb. Well, it'd only hit one hemisphere, but you get the gist. I just hope that one of the sub-asteroids hits the moon and blows it to hell. I'd like to see that before I die.

Amazon's Beautiful Failure

The following is my personal response to the Amazon XBOX incident. If you don't know what it's about, Amazon sold 1000 360's for $100, and people are upset they didn't get one. http://www.amazon.com/gp/holiday/cv/...834119-5960869 That's the link to the site. Anyhow, I got tired of the whining and decided to say something. Of course, I can never get it done in a few words, so I popped this out. If you were involved in this deal at all, please take my words into account. If you weren't, now you can see my take on events.

Oh, and the post before mine said that people were complaining about not getting one. Realized that the first sentence doesn't make sense unless you know that.




No, what they're upset about is that they didn't get a "fair chance," as far as I can tell from reading their posts. It's not such a problem that Amazon is open and upfront about their policies, it's that there was a massive rush for the fantastic deal provided by said company. Wait, what? The problem was with OTHER PEOPLE trying to do the EXACT SAME THING as lots of OTHER PEOPLE? So, like, human beings caused the problem? No! It was the fact that the numbers of people couldn't be handled by Amazon's servers! 'K, so Amazon's at fault now. But, wait, don't they make tons of cash? And didn't having their servers go down cause them to lose money? Why? Because they were providing a great deal, as I said above. But, apparently, some people are claiming that the deal didn't really exist. I can't say either way; I was closed out and didn't get one. If the deal, didn't exist, then what's the problem? Nobody got cheated out of anything! You have the power of the American consumer that's renowned for its strength: choice. That choice is what you applied when you decided to go to Amazon.com and try to get a video game system for much less than its MSRP. That choice in lots of people caused the server load, caused lots of people not to get an XBOX 360, caused lots of crankiness. There can be only one logical solution: sue Amazon! Yeah! I used my choice along with lots of other people, and I'm angry that I chose poorly!

Ok, seriously. There's one very obvious course of action, following this incident. I lied; there's three. Murder, suicide, or never using the internet again. Let me explain before people accuse me of being horrid and such. Murder lowers the amount of competition; it's easier to get one of those one thousand units if you kill other people who'll be trying to get one. Suicide and never using the 'net again really have the same goal; you'll never have problems with Amazon or any other site's sales if you don't see them. That's the mentality with not getting online again. The suicide goes a step further, taking the stance that real life stores have great sales and their doors are just too small to fit everyone through and that would cause problems. Stupid laws of physics, not letting two bodies occupy the same space. Of course, you could just groom your greed and then this wouldn't be a problem. It's two hundred dollars off a three hundred dollar item. That's two thirds off. If you wanted to spend one hundred dollars on a Christmas present for somebody, this could have been handy, but it's not the be all, end all present. There are many other choices. How about buying the new PS2 Silver, for only thirty dollars more? A Nintendo DS for, again, thirty dollars more? Books to expand one's mind! Marijuana to do the same! Five classic movies! One, maybe two depending on price, series of TV shows! Music is always a good choice, and then when you get a 360 you can put it on the hard drive and listen to it playing Gears of War. Since you didn't get the deal now, just wait a while until another price drop.

pa‧tience  /ˈpeɪʃəns/ -noun
1.the quality of being patient, as the bearing of provocation, annoyance, misfortune, or pain, without complaint, loss of temper, irritation, or the like.
2.an ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance when confronted with delay: to have patience with a slow learner.

Patience, if you're religious, is one of the seven cardinal virtues. Funny how it opposes wrath, of which much has been seen on this board. I'm not really religious, just thought that you might appreciate this. By you, I mean people who are so upset with Amazon at the moment. Sorry if there was any mistake there.

I'd like to add one more thing, then I'll shut up and let you back to your lawyering. I've seen it said that Amazon should have handled this better. None of the suggestions would have done anything to alleviate this. If everyone put their names in a hat and Amazon pulled out 1000 for the almighty deal, there would STILL be people claiming that it was a gyp and such. If Amazon had set it up with 100 systems at 1 hour intervals or something, that would have just caused 10 times the whining. The only way they could have done it better would be if they didn't do it all.

All this thinking has worked me into a frenzy! I'll go calm down by reading Pearls Before Swine. Have fun, y'all!