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.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
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!
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!
Monday, September 25, 2006
College: A Brief Examination
My first month of college. That's what this post will describe. If you're in college, you likely know all the shit I'm going to say. If you've graduated college, you know of things that I've missed in this month. If you're not in college yet, then consider this on par with any account of anybody else's first month in college, except that I'm in New York City.
First off, college is nothing like real life. I've been told for years that college is more responsibility, more complex, and such things. Fortunately, it's really not. I've just the same amount of work I did in high school. I have about 12 hours of class every week. The homework means about 4 or 5 hours every week. That's about 17 hours each week dedicated to school. Granted, I'm not pre-med (English Education), but it's pretty easy so far.
Food: it's cafeterias for the most part. Now, some people don't like that. I know that I really have fallen in love with that cute fruit juice machine that makes the grape juice just how I like it, and I'm a good friend with the guys who dish out the pasta and lay out the pizza. I'm on a meal plan, so I get two meals each day (I usually only end up eating one), and I meet all sorts of fun people. I met a girl who plays french horn and is interested in starting a ska band. If it goes anywhere I'll let everyone here know about it. It sounds fun.
You might notice something; in this whole time I've only mentioned one girl. There's a simple reason for that; I know I'm attractive to girls (for some fucked up reason), and it's not much different than high school. Everyone keeps their weird OCD shit and things like that, so it's not some dream world that you might think it is. There's the movie kids who have movies memorized. There are stoner kids (no explanation needed). There are the flaming gay guys who do the best Spice Girls impersonations you've ever seen (and I've seen quite a few). There's the girls who just want to get laid. There's the girls who are saving it for marriage. There's guys of both sorts. Cliques have already formed. It's really no different from high school.
Now we get to what's way different (at least for me). EVERYONE seems to like getting wasted every night. I mean some serious drinking. 12 shots of Absolut Mandarin, no chaser! Anyone? That's what a kid in the second floor did last night. It's crazy drinking. These kids have never had access to booze and so they're going crazy now. While I'm spending my money to see Massive Attack and Broadway shows, they're putting in crazy money for booze. I mean like fifty bucks worth of stuff on Thursday, fifty on Saturday, and then they rest till next week. And that's fifty each. These kids have insane amounts of money. I get 250 each month; that's for shows, concerts, and going out for meals. It covers me fine. The way these kids spend money, I can't imagine how loaded their parents must be. It's insane.
I'll likely post again sometime soon. For now, I'm going to try to get some coherent stories for all of you. Maybe you'd like the 'punk bitches' story. I'll get it all set for y'all.
First off, college is nothing like real life. I've been told for years that college is more responsibility, more complex, and such things. Fortunately, it's really not. I've just the same amount of work I did in high school. I have about 12 hours of class every week. The homework means about 4 or 5 hours every week. That's about 17 hours each week dedicated to school. Granted, I'm not pre-med (English Education), but it's pretty easy so far.
Food: it's cafeterias for the most part. Now, some people don't like that. I know that I really have fallen in love with that cute fruit juice machine that makes the grape juice just how I like it, and I'm a good friend with the guys who dish out the pasta and lay out the pizza. I'm on a meal plan, so I get two meals each day (I usually only end up eating one), and I meet all sorts of fun people. I met a girl who plays french horn and is interested in starting a ska band. If it goes anywhere I'll let everyone here know about it. It sounds fun.
You might notice something; in this whole time I've only mentioned one girl. There's a simple reason for that; I know I'm attractive to girls (for some fucked up reason), and it's not much different than high school. Everyone keeps their weird OCD shit and things like that, so it's not some dream world that you might think it is. There's the movie kids who have movies memorized. There are stoner kids (no explanation needed). There are the flaming gay guys who do the best Spice Girls impersonations you've ever seen (and I've seen quite a few). There's the girls who just want to get laid. There's the girls who are saving it for marriage. There's guys of both sorts. Cliques have already formed. It's really no different from high school.
Now we get to what's way different (at least for me). EVERYONE seems to like getting wasted every night. I mean some serious drinking. 12 shots of Absolut Mandarin, no chaser! Anyone? That's what a kid in the second floor did last night. It's crazy drinking. These kids have never had access to booze and so they're going crazy now. While I'm spending my money to see Massive Attack and Broadway shows, they're putting in crazy money for booze. I mean like fifty bucks worth of stuff on Thursday, fifty on Saturday, and then they rest till next week. And that's fifty each. These kids have insane amounts of money. I get 250 each month; that's for shows, concerts, and going out for meals. It covers me fine. The way these kids spend money, I can't imagine how loaded their parents must be. It's insane.
I'll likely post again sometime soon. For now, I'm going to try to get some coherent stories for all of you. Maybe you'd like the 'punk bitches' story. I'll get it all set for y'all.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Long Songs Are Wrong Songs
Are modern songs just too long? Please, before you bring up great long songs, realize that I listen to long songs more often than not. I'm not asking about jazz tunes. Nothing where there is improvisation am I suggesting be shortened. I'm talking about modern rock tunes.
Listen to the basic modern tune. No matter if you hear it recorded or see it live, it'll be basically the same song. Sure, they might put in a transition to the next song or something, but it's the same exact song. Now look through that song's artist and their other songs. If you look, there's really about 7 songs with slightly different parts; 4 fast songs, 1 medium song, and 2 slow songs. So, if you go see this group live, you might pay about fifty bucks to see four guys (lead guitar/singer, second guitar/singer, bass, drums) play variations on seven songs. Now, this is fine if you really like those seven songs, but for me it just doesn't cut it.
Dig this then; these bands can produce, before they fall into obscurity, maybe five albums. Each album has about 10-15 songs average, so we can assume that there's 2 of each song on that album. Unless you REALLY like those songs, is it worth it to pay a dollar for each one of those songs?
Here we come to what I suggested at the start; with these songs, you usually get the main idea within the first minute thirty. That's half the song; after that, it's usually got an instrumental break (prewritten) and several repetitions of the chorus. So why not just end the song after the main idea has been passed? That way you can just about double the number of songs on the CD. When you do them live, you can expand them past that first section to give live performances some difference from the CD played really loudly. So you'd get about four of each song on the CD. Isn't that a better value? I mean, unless these bands want to actually put some thought into their songs and expand them past the basic form.
Take Bohemian Rhapsody. If you haven't heard it, go buy some Queen albums and take a listen. With this song, you can't cut it anywhere and get across the main message. The song is an evolution through various styles. If modern groups would take the time and work their songs out past a short tidbit of an emotion, then I'd be all for lengthening their songs. I'd cheer if Linkin Park could put together a song that held my interest for seven minutes. How about if System of a Down made a collaborative song with Metallica and had a band duel? Maybe if ANY of these bands tried doing improvised guitar solos instead of just rhythm breaks we'd have something splendid. As we have it now, I turn on the radio just hoping I get through all seven songs before they start repeating.
Listen to the basic modern tune. No matter if you hear it recorded or see it live, it'll be basically the same song. Sure, they might put in a transition to the next song or something, but it's the same exact song. Now look through that song's artist and their other songs. If you look, there's really about 7 songs with slightly different parts; 4 fast songs, 1 medium song, and 2 slow songs. So, if you go see this group live, you might pay about fifty bucks to see four guys (lead guitar/singer, second guitar/singer, bass, drums) play variations on seven songs. Now, this is fine if you really like those seven songs, but for me it just doesn't cut it.
Dig this then; these bands can produce, before they fall into obscurity, maybe five albums. Each album has about 10-15 songs average, so we can assume that there's 2 of each song on that album. Unless you REALLY like those songs, is it worth it to pay a dollar for each one of those songs?
Here we come to what I suggested at the start; with these songs, you usually get the main idea within the first minute thirty. That's half the song; after that, it's usually got an instrumental break (prewritten) and several repetitions of the chorus. So why not just end the song after the main idea has been passed? That way you can just about double the number of songs on the CD. When you do them live, you can expand them past that first section to give live performances some difference from the CD played really loudly. So you'd get about four of each song on the CD. Isn't that a better value? I mean, unless these bands want to actually put some thought into their songs and expand them past the basic form.
Take Bohemian Rhapsody. If you haven't heard it, go buy some Queen albums and take a listen. With this song, you can't cut it anywhere and get across the main message. The song is an evolution through various styles. If modern groups would take the time and work their songs out past a short tidbit of an emotion, then I'd be all for lengthening their songs. I'd cheer if Linkin Park could put together a song that held my interest for seven minutes. How about if System of a Down made a collaborative song with Metallica and had a band duel? Maybe if ANY of these bands tried doing improvised guitar solos instead of just rhythm breaks we'd have something splendid. As we have it now, I turn on the radio just hoping I get through all seven songs before they start repeating.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
A Question of Law
Ok, so a person can commit mutiple homicide. I've got to figure out how somebody could do multiple suicide. Would one kill oneself several times over? How about having other people kill themselves in the same action? Would that involve becoming a suicidal zombie? Would crimes from life apply to a zombie's three strikes in california? How about this; a person dies and comes back a zombie. A necrophiliac has sex with them. Does their age count from when they were first born or from when they were brought back? If it's when they were brought back, how would the necrophiliac know? I mean, it'd be zombie jailbait! Eeew...
Past that, zombies are just silly. I mean, shambling? Unless one's leg muscles are decomposing or in a late stage of such an action, one could still move pretty quickly as the undead. At least, it seems like that to me. They would be scary as hell; think Braveheart with the undead instead of the Scotts. Mel Gibson wouldn't give a damn about being racked; he'd split into two and slaughter the torturer guys. His guys get their heads chopped off and don't care? Yeah, scary. I know I wouldn't want to be their enemy. Well, shit, they're zombies, so the living are their enemies, so I guess I'm screwed if that happens while I'm alive.
I'll edit this post to reflect responses that I receive and any questions or comments on these responses.
My good friend Ean responded with this:
Laws implicitly apply to the living, so even if you could come back as a zombie and kill yourself, you wouldn't be commiting a crime. You would have to come back to life, and kill yourself again. The same goes for having sex with them. But I doubt a necrophiliac would have sex with a zombie, since a zombie really isn't dead dead, you know?
Response to his statement:
Aren't zombies the living dead, therefore making them in the category of living?
Past that, zombies are just silly. I mean, shambling? Unless one's leg muscles are decomposing or in a late stage of such an action, one could still move pretty quickly as the undead. At least, it seems like that to me. They would be scary as hell; think Braveheart with the undead instead of the Scotts. Mel Gibson wouldn't give a damn about being racked; he'd split into two and slaughter the torturer guys. His guys get their heads chopped off and don't care? Yeah, scary. I know I wouldn't want to be their enemy. Well, shit, they're zombies, so the living are their enemies, so I guess I'm screwed if that happens while I'm alive.
I'll edit this post to reflect responses that I receive and any questions or comments on these responses.
My good friend Ean responded with this:
Laws implicitly apply to the living, so even if you could come back as a zombie and kill yourself, you wouldn't be commiting a crime. You would have to come back to life, and kill yourself again. The same goes for having sex with them. But I doubt a necrophiliac would have sex with a zombie, since a zombie really isn't dead dead, you know?
Response to his statement:
Aren't zombies the living dead, therefore making them in the category of living?
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Freedom Across the Internet!
If you're a Democrat (as you might have noticed I am), and you've been watching the news (as you might have noticed I do), you'll have heard about a Senate battle in Connecticut (as you might have noticed I have). This race is between somebody who, by his political history, should win no problem, and another dude. Messa Joe Lieberman is the one who, if you just look at what he's done, should win. Now, people are raising a stink about him being too 'Republican' or summat, but I have a reason aside from all that for disliking him. When I told my mom this reason the other night, she looked at me like I might have developed downs syndrome a bit late. The problem is this; he is against violent video games.
Now, me, I'm all for gun control. Make it so everyone has to register their weapons and such so that all gun crimes can be traced. If you know how I think, you'll see how I'm going to use this and can just skip this paragraph. So everyone has to have registrations on their weapons in my ideal law. This does NOT mean that people can't purchase whatever the hell guns they want. This does NOT mean that people are disarmed by their government. This means that people just are registered as owning a shotgun, an AK-47, and so on. Kind of like registering a car.
Lieberman has talked of a bill that would harm the industry greatly (back to games here). If we were talking about guns, he'd be saying that everything past a single shot derringer is bad. As it is, he's tried to suppress violent games as best he can. Which, as you'll notice, is not very well.
I don't have a problem with suppression of these games, in some forms. I don't think that an eight year old should be able to walk into Target and buy GTA. I think that we shouldn't bother with forming a government organization to rate games (as has been supported by Lieberman), I think that we should trust the independent board that already rates the games. Games should be restricted only when needed.
Games rated 'Mature' get treated, these days, as the plague on our youth. The real problem isn't that kids get these games; it's that parents won't take responsibility. I'm not saying anything bad about most parents. Most parents don't let their kids play violent, hateful games and then blame the industry when their kids are messed up. I'm not saying the games cause these problems. I'm doing the same thing done in the book Freakonomics. Great book, by the way. There is an association between intelligence of children in school and how many books are in the homes. There is NOTHING about having books that helps a child learn. It's that the house has parents who obviously care about learning and set an example. A parent buys Doom 3 for their ten year old is not likely to be a caring, nuturing sort of parent. They're more than likely just wanting to get the little brat to shut the hell up about the game. What would help children of our world grow up better is restrictions on parents, not on the games. If a person had to submit an application to be a parent, wait a month, and then have an interview, we'd have more interested parents and fewer fucked up situations like Columbine. Notice here: Columbine and video games are NOT connected. Bad parenting and Columbine ARE. Didn't one of the weapons come from one of the kids' dads or something? Having a weapon like that handy creates an immunity to hateful violence and such. Playing video games (modern ones, especially) show that senseless violence can have consequences (GTA, you get arrested and lose all your crap). Parents need to start owning up to the fact that they chose to raise this kid and they need to take responsibility.
If you've stuck around this long, nicely done. You get to see what this is all about; if you have the power to vote and live in Connecticut, write to Lieberman about this. If you're not of voting age, volunteer for a campaign that has no planks related to video games (don't go for one that supports them, as these create controversy. We want to keep this a private issue, not a government one). No matter who you are, write your elected officials and tell them what your stand is. If you're in another country, write to your officials and tell them your stand. If you don't care, then why did you read all the way down here?
You lose! Good day, sir!
Now, me, I'm all for gun control. Make it so everyone has to register their weapons and such so that all gun crimes can be traced. If you know how I think, you'll see how I'm going to use this and can just skip this paragraph. So everyone has to have registrations on their weapons in my ideal law. This does NOT mean that people can't purchase whatever the hell guns they want. This does NOT mean that people are disarmed by their government. This means that people just are registered as owning a shotgun, an AK-47, and so on. Kind of like registering a car.
Lieberman has talked of a bill that would harm the industry greatly (back to games here). If we were talking about guns, he'd be saying that everything past a single shot derringer is bad. As it is, he's tried to suppress violent games as best he can. Which, as you'll notice, is not very well.
I don't have a problem with suppression of these games, in some forms. I don't think that an eight year old should be able to walk into Target and buy GTA. I think that we shouldn't bother with forming a government organization to rate games (as has been supported by Lieberman), I think that we should trust the independent board that already rates the games. Games should be restricted only when needed.
Games rated 'Mature' get treated, these days, as the plague on our youth. The real problem isn't that kids get these games; it's that parents won't take responsibility. I'm not saying anything bad about most parents. Most parents don't let their kids play violent, hateful games and then blame the industry when their kids are messed up. I'm not saying the games cause these problems. I'm doing the same thing done in the book Freakonomics. Great book, by the way. There is an association between intelligence of children in school and how many books are in the homes. There is NOTHING about having books that helps a child learn. It's that the house has parents who obviously care about learning and set an example. A parent buys Doom 3 for their ten year old is not likely to be a caring, nuturing sort of parent. They're more than likely just wanting to get the little brat to shut the hell up about the game. What would help children of our world grow up better is restrictions on parents, not on the games. If a person had to submit an application to be a parent, wait a month, and then have an interview, we'd have more interested parents and fewer fucked up situations like Columbine. Notice here: Columbine and video games are NOT connected. Bad parenting and Columbine ARE. Didn't one of the weapons come from one of the kids' dads or something? Having a weapon like that handy creates an immunity to hateful violence and such. Playing video games (modern ones, especially) show that senseless violence can have consequences (GTA, you get arrested and lose all your crap). Parents need to start owning up to the fact that they chose to raise this kid and they need to take responsibility.
If you've stuck around this long, nicely done. You get to see what this is all about; if you have the power to vote and live in Connecticut, write to Lieberman about this. If you're not of voting age, volunteer for a campaign that has no planks related to video games (don't go for one that supports them, as these create controversy. We want to keep this a private issue, not a government one). No matter who you are, write your elected officials and tell them what your stand is. If you're in another country, write to your officials and tell them your stand. If you don't care, then why did you read all the way down here?
You lose! Good day, sir!
Saturday, August 5, 2006
A Prayer for a Dictator
I'd like to ask all of you to sit for a second and think of a person you've cared for a great deal. I'd like you to consider if you liked them being sick. If not, then pray, hope, think, whatever it is that you do, that others won't get sick in the same way.
Now that we've done this, I'd like to bring up Fidel Castro. For those of you not in the know, he's been leader in Cuba for a big long time and has just, for the first time in many many years, let his brother rule temporarily. And before anybody says "good riddance," think back to what I asked you to do last paragraph. No matter your feelings for his rule, no matter your feelings about him as a person, no matter your feelings about communism, Castro is a human being. Do you know the saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" This is one of those cases. Castro is sick. If you believe in prayer, pray for him to feel better. If you don't, then think good thoughts for his health. You've seen me as a staunch opponent of our current White House, but every surgery Cheney gets I put aside my opinions and hope that he'll feel better. If you believe in the sanctity of human life in any way, shape, or form, then you should hope for even your enemies to be healthy. If you claim to be a pacifist, then no more wishing harm upon those you dislike! If you claim to be pro-life, no declaring that others should suffer for their beliefs! Lets all play nice, ok?
Now that we've done this, I'd like to bring up Fidel Castro. For those of you not in the know, he's been leader in Cuba for a big long time and has just, for the first time in many many years, let his brother rule temporarily. And before anybody says "good riddance," think back to what I asked you to do last paragraph. No matter your feelings for his rule, no matter your feelings about him as a person, no matter your feelings about communism, Castro is a human being. Do you know the saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" This is one of those cases. Castro is sick. If you believe in prayer, pray for him to feel better. If you don't, then think good thoughts for his health. You've seen me as a staunch opponent of our current White House, but every surgery Cheney gets I put aside my opinions and hope that he'll feel better. If you believe in the sanctity of human life in any way, shape, or form, then you should hope for even your enemies to be healthy. If you claim to be a pacifist, then no more wishing harm upon those you dislike! If you claim to be pro-life, no declaring that others should suffer for their beliefs! Lets all play nice, ok?
Thursday, August 3, 2006
Leon for Vendetta
So I finally found a Natalie Portman flick that I enjoyed her acting. Until this movie, I hated her and wanted her to just get off the screen. I mean, Star Wars would have been better without her. Shit, have Ani fall in love with Obi Wan. Win win! Brokeback Deathstar, anyone? Mmmmm....Ewan Mcgregor...
Anyway, back to the movie. Leon the Professional. Or Leon. It's written multiple ways (on the package or in the flick). It's a pretty good action movie, if you're into those. It's got Jean Reno, who has recently been in The Da Vinci Code and The Pink Panther. He's a good actor and I know I'd pay him to clean.
Basic plot; Portman's family is murdered and Reno's their neighbor. Reno takes her in and teaches her about being a hitman. She wants revenge on the killers of her little brother (doesn't care about the rest of her dirtbag family), and Reno doesn't like the idea. Not-such-hilarity ensues. Weird love story occurs. No big betrayals or plot twists, but it's an action movie! C'mon! Don't expect TOO much, neh? It's worth renting and watching once, at the very least. I know I'm going to buy myself a copy. V for Vendetta does a similar thing with Portman, but this movie is much better than V. V took a revolutionary concept and smashed it into the ground. This movie took a set of characters and just expanded on how they'd interact. Interesting movie, for the genre of action, at least.
Anyway, back to the movie. Leon the Professional. Or Leon. It's written multiple ways (on the package or in the flick). It's a pretty good action movie, if you're into those. It's got Jean Reno, who has recently been in The Da Vinci Code and The Pink Panther. He's a good actor and I know I'd pay him to clean.
Basic plot; Portman's family is murdered and Reno's their neighbor. Reno takes her in and teaches her about being a hitman. She wants revenge on the killers of her little brother (doesn't care about the rest of her dirtbag family), and Reno doesn't like the idea. Not-such-hilarity ensues. Weird love story occurs. No big betrayals or plot twists, but it's an action movie! C'mon! Don't expect TOO much, neh? It's worth renting and watching once, at the very least. I know I'm going to buy myself a copy. V for Vendetta does a similar thing with Portman, but this movie is much better than V. V took a revolutionary concept and smashed it into the ground. This movie took a set of characters and just expanded on how they'd interact. Interesting movie, for the genre of action, at least.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Vehicular Boredom
So I've seen Cars. Twice. Hoped the second time would be better than the first. It wasn't. Pixar! You have betrayed me! Why have you made a subpar movie? Why have you not continued the stream started with Toy Story? Why has your Incredible group of movies ended? Did Disney buying you do this? Then it is war! For too long Disney has made fantastic companies bow under their iron rule! I say, take up your torches, your axes, your pitchforks! Take up the way of battle, of honor, of rebellion! We shall storm Disneyland and take back what is rightfully ours; the freedom of good movies to be made by independent companies! There are only people in animal suits to stop us! Let no furries bar our path. They have chosen to align themselves with the enemy; give them no quarter. Except for Tigger. He's a double agent for sure.
So yeah. I didn't like Cars. People probably will not agree on this point. Really: Toy Story had a funny story that resolved after a struggle. Bugs Life, same thing. Incredibles; conflict, resolution. Cars? What the hell was the conflict? The conflict was preplanned! The nemesis was named from the start, and all he did throughout the movie was cameos. The hero becomes trapped in a small town because of his own stupidity. I mean, it's a celebration of ineptitude. He can do one thing well and that's all he can do well. He goes fast. I mean, what scenes does he enjoy more than the ones where he goes fast? Oh yeah, the ones where he gets the girl. So he likes going fast and he likes girls. Simplest analysis of a Nascar driver? For the most part, I have to say yes. Least common Nascar denominator. At least for male drivers; can't speak for teh girrlz. Why idolize lower class America? With The Incredibles, it was middle class suburban America, but with superpowers. Which makes it awesome. What did Cars offer us? Not much, when tossed against Monsters, Inc., Toy Story, and the rest of the lineup. It makes me wonder what caused Pixar to put out such a lower quality product. Is Cars just a snack to stave us over until Pixer drops the next big thing? Or is this an indication of the future of Pixar? I wish I knew.
Much loves to you all! I'm a free bird!
So yeah. I didn't like Cars. People probably will not agree on this point. Really: Toy Story had a funny story that resolved after a struggle. Bugs Life, same thing. Incredibles; conflict, resolution. Cars? What the hell was the conflict? The conflict was preplanned! The nemesis was named from the start, and all he did throughout the movie was cameos. The hero becomes trapped in a small town because of his own stupidity. I mean, it's a celebration of ineptitude. He can do one thing well and that's all he can do well. He goes fast. I mean, what scenes does he enjoy more than the ones where he goes fast? Oh yeah, the ones where he gets the girl. So he likes going fast and he likes girls. Simplest analysis of a Nascar driver? For the most part, I have to say yes. Least common Nascar denominator. At least for male drivers; can't speak for teh girrlz. Why idolize lower class America? With The Incredibles, it was middle class suburban America, but with superpowers. Which makes it awesome. What did Cars offer us? Not much, when tossed against Monsters, Inc., Toy Story, and the rest of the lineup. It makes me wonder what caused Pixar to put out such a lower quality product. Is Cars just a snack to stave us over until Pixer drops the next big thing? Or is this an indication of the future of Pixar? I wish I knew.
Much loves to you all! I'm a free bird!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
