Why Bob Odenkirk isn't as famous as his old Mr. Show partner, David Cross, I'll never know.
This is totally awesome:
Friday, August 22, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Where is West?
No secret, but the ongoing conflict between East and West has found new life. Yeah, not much of a news flash there, it’s been blatantly obvious since one fall Tuesday seven years ago - has it been that long already? And doubtless it was actually pretty obvious before that for anyone who was paying attention - but that seems to have been part of the issue… no one was.
Like some geo-political Valdez, with a drunk Captain at the helm, Western civilization ran aground on the shores of Islam.
It’s been obvious that the definition of ‘East’ in East versus west has changed over not only the course of my lifetime, but for a lot longer than that. It’s face has several times been worn by Communist China and it’s ideological Asian allies. It has been the Soviet Union. And, of course now it is the fundamentalist vein of Islam. Lot’s of virtual ink has been used yakking over how different this paradigm is. How it’s not political, but religious. How the geography of the opposition is both unconstrained and interspersed with less radical mindsets and to a lesser degree even interspersed with our own. I couldn’t comment upon an idea that is new to me on this front, let alone one that is new to anyone else who is at all in touch with the state of the world we live in.
I fully expect that this particular stand off will out live me. Though I do hope that it’s eventual outcome crystallizes in my lifetime. It’s such a big question - one of the biggest of our time, up there with peak oil and global warming - and one that would be particularly unfulfilling to leave unanswered in my day… even if the ‘answer’ is nothing more than a projection. Perhaps I should re-phrase this. It is a certainty that this divide will remain long after I am gone. But perhaps the core issue might lean towards resolution before I am done.
What I have been thinking about that may seem more original - it certainly does to me - is the notion of how we - The West - have changed.
I’ve taken to using the term ‘Neo-West’ of late as I feel it more accurately identifies who ‘we’ are.
Once upon a time, the West was Western Europe. Then the New World began to exert it’s might in the world - as the ‘we’ of the America’s found our ideological voices and the ingenuity to muster our resources into some relevance. This primarily came into focus through the two global conflicts of the 20th century. And with the rise of the Pax-Americana, shifted drastically through the cold-war to roughly where it is now.
But even that designation is misleading. The ‘West’ of my high-school days is significantly different from the ‘Neo-West’ of today. Certainly in a political sense. The geography of who is counted among the West has shifted, though in many ways the demographic of the people within those areas remains in many ways the same.
Obviously I am speaking foremost of the former Soviet Union. While significant parts of that vast land-mass are strife ridden and much of that strife is a Muslim/Non-Muslim divide, most of that it small scale. The land that was once behind the Iron Curtain and made up the greater part of the perceived ‘East’ of the Kennedy/Kruschev through Reagan/Gorbachev eras is now inarguably Neo-West.
The Land of the Rising Sun - once an enemy so reviled that the moral compass dropped quickly to the bottom, like say an atom-bomb, thus allowing the inhumane notion of visiting the horror of that same weapon upon them was seen as collateral damage - are now a thriving Neo-western nation. Indeed, one of the most thriving. If the definition of Neo-West is ‘industrial capitalist democracy’ (which isn’t necessarily the definition, but certainly works as starting criteria) then it’s arguable that Japan is the epitome of Neo-Western civilization. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! The unavoidable inclusion of Japan alone clearly severs the implicit understanding of my grandparent’s generation that ‘West’ meant white (or even pre-dominantly white) nations.
There are also countries that were the afterthoughts of Western Civilization. Places that were culturally and politically ‘West’ and had be so affiliated for generations, but by an accident of geography were typically ignored as being part of the family. Australia and New Zealand are the obvious examples here. Both colonies of Britain, both settled under similar circumstances to one another and to a lesser degree Canada. Both participated in the World Wars, are essentially English speaking, and have long been consumers of Western culture. It’s hard to say that they haven’t been part of the club. But they were always wallflowers at the member functions.
There is an obvious geo-centric argument to go against my claim that Canada has been a part of the West as long as the U.S. has been. We participated in both World Wars more immediately than the US - and going with my earlier thoughts that seems to have been one of the keys to membership previous to the past twenty years. And as the US became the dominant force in Western culture, Canada was both literally and figuratively right alongside. Yes, we as Canadians come similarly close to being the red-headed step-children along with our brethren from Down Under, but I feel that we’ve been sitting at the big kids table for most of a century.
Undoubtedly many more countries and or regions can lay claim to being part of the Neo-West. Western Europe is a given. Large portions of South and to a lesser degree Meso-America are ‘in the club.’ Parts of Africa, for sure seeing as the ‘white’ requirement has been dropped.
Israel? Why not. Israel certainly qualifies by any measure previously mentioned, and if being ‘pre-dominantly white’ is no longer relevant then why should religion? Excepting that the ‘East’ of this equation is primarily defined as Muslim. That alone firmly puts any Judaic society on the ‘camp of opposition’ to the existing ‘East’ simply by definition. There’s nothing that says this is a ‘Christian-nation’ thing. That’s an idea whose fleeting relevance gets more and more quaint in the face of rising US religiosity.
My point - for the moment - seems to be that ‘East’ and ‘West’ while still relevant terms, don’t in fact mean ‘East’ and ‘West’ cartographically anymore. It’s obvious that Western culture is no longer ‘Leave it to Beaver.’ Not even close. Though I think in many ways, by those of us who have been part of the ‘West’ since before our grandparents were born, it’s easy to forget. We may be a global society, but superficially at least, a patina of our former centricism remains while the fruit underneath the skin comes in so many different flavours - often a melange of the greater selection.
What does it all mean any more? How do these increasingly arbitrary divisions have such long legs?
Oh, why can't we all just get along? ;-)
Like some geo-political Valdez, with a drunk Captain at the helm, Western civilization ran aground on the shores of Islam.
It’s been obvious that the definition of ‘East’ in East versus west has changed over not only the course of my lifetime, but for a lot longer than that. It’s face has several times been worn by Communist China and it’s ideological Asian allies. It has been the Soviet Union. And, of course now it is the fundamentalist vein of Islam. Lot’s of virtual ink has been used yakking over how different this paradigm is. How it’s not political, but religious. How the geography of the opposition is both unconstrained and interspersed with less radical mindsets and to a lesser degree even interspersed with our own. I couldn’t comment upon an idea that is new to me on this front, let alone one that is new to anyone else who is at all in touch with the state of the world we live in.
I fully expect that this particular stand off will out live me. Though I do hope that it’s eventual outcome crystallizes in my lifetime. It’s such a big question - one of the biggest of our time, up there with peak oil and global warming - and one that would be particularly unfulfilling to leave unanswered in my day… even if the ‘answer’ is nothing more than a projection. Perhaps I should re-phrase this. It is a certainty that this divide will remain long after I am gone. But perhaps the core issue might lean towards resolution before I am done.
What I have been thinking about that may seem more original - it certainly does to me - is the notion of how we - The West - have changed.
I’ve taken to using the term ‘Neo-West’ of late as I feel it more accurately identifies who ‘we’ are.
Once upon a time, the West was Western Europe. Then the New World began to exert it’s might in the world - as the ‘we’ of the America’s found our ideological voices and the ingenuity to muster our resources into some relevance. This primarily came into focus through the two global conflicts of the 20th century. And with the rise of the Pax-Americana, shifted drastically through the cold-war to roughly where it is now.
But even that designation is misleading. The ‘West’ of my high-school days is significantly different from the ‘Neo-West’ of today. Certainly in a political sense. The geography of who is counted among the West has shifted, though in many ways the demographic of the people within those areas remains in many ways the same.
Obviously I am speaking foremost of the former Soviet Union. While significant parts of that vast land-mass are strife ridden and much of that strife is a Muslim/Non-Muslim divide, most of that it small scale. The land that was once behind the Iron Curtain and made up the greater part of the perceived ‘East’ of the Kennedy/Kruschev through Reagan/Gorbachev eras is now inarguably Neo-West.
The Land of the Rising Sun - once an enemy so reviled that the moral compass dropped quickly to the bottom, like say an atom-bomb, thus allowing the inhumane notion of visiting the horror of that same weapon upon them was seen as collateral damage - are now a thriving Neo-western nation. Indeed, one of the most thriving. If the definition of Neo-West is ‘industrial capitalist democracy’ (which isn’t necessarily the definition, but certainly works as starting criteria) then it’s arguable that Japan is the epitome of Neo-Western civilization. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! The unavoidable inclusion of Japan alone clearly severs the implicit understanding of my grandparent’s generation that ‘West’ meant white (or even pre-dominantly white) nations.
There are also countries that were the afterthoughts of Western Civilization. Places that were culturally and politically ‘West’ and had be so affiliated for generations, but by an accident of geography were typically ignored as being part of the family. Australia and New Zealand are the obvious examples here. Both colonies of Britain, both settled under similar circumstances to one another and to a lesser degree Canada. Both participated in the World Wars, are essentially English speaking, and have long been consumers of Western culture. It’s hard to say that they haven’t been part of the club. But they were always wallflowers at the member functions.
There is an obvious geo-centric argument to go against my claim that Canada has been a part of the West as long as the U.S. has been. We participated in both World Wars more immediately than the US - and going with my earlier thoughts that seems to have been one of the keys to membership previous to the past twenty years. And as the US became the dominant force in Western culture, Canada was both literally and figuratively right alongside. Yes, we as Canadians come similarly close to being the red-headed step-children along with our brethren from Down Under, but I feel that we’ve been sitting at the big kids table for most of a century.
Undoubtedly many more countries and or regions can lay claim to being part of the Neo-West. Western Europe is a given. Large portions of South and to a lesser degree Meso-America are ‘in the club.’ Parts of Africa, for sure seeing as the ‘white’ requirement has been dropped.
Israel? Why not. Israel certainly qualifies by any measure previously mentioned, and if being ‘pre-dominantly white’ is no longer relevant then why should religion? Excepting that the ‘East’ of this equation is primarily defined as Muslim. That alone firmly puts any Judaic society on the ‘camp of opposition’ to the existing ‘East’ simply by definition. There’s nothing that says this is a ‘Christian-nation’ thing. That’s an idea whose fleeting relevance gets more and more quaint in the face of rising US religiosity.
My point - for the moment - seems to be that ‘East’ and ‘West’ while still relevant terms, don’t in fact mean ‘East’ and ‘West’ cartographically anymore. It’s obvious that Western culture is no longer ‘Leave it to Beaver.’ Not even close. Though I think in many ways, by those of us who have been part of the ‘West’ since before our grandparents were born, it’s easy to forget. We may be a global society, but superficially at least, a patina of our former centricism remains while the fruit underneath the skin comes in so many different flavours - often a melange of the greater selection.
What does it all mean any more? How do these increasingly arbitrary divisions have such long legs?
Oh, why can't we all just get along? ;-)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Dark Knight
I went to Batman yesterday.
It was fantastic.
A number of months ago Dafne asked me who my top five directors were. Chris Nolan was on the bubble at that time, but there is no longer any doubt in my mind. He is an outrageously talented visionary.
There are a few quibbles I have with it, but just minor things really.
The real question though is Heath Ledger. How good is he?
He is wonderful. He seems to have put it in the back of his mind that the Joker is one of the greatest arch villains of all time. The Joker has to earn that, just like anyone else - and he does. It must be a scary proposition to know that you are going to be measured against Jack Nicholson (and no less than one of Jack’s most iconic performances) and Heath is equal to the job. It is very impressive.
It’s also very creepy that at the end, the door is clearly left open for the Joker to return, when we know that he (or at least Heath) can not. It would not have been hard to re-shoot & restructure in such a way that the Joker was clearly gone for good.
But someone needs to say this…
It is NOT an Oscar worthy performance. That is being said for the sole reason that Heath has died after such a promising performance. He probably would have been a perennial had he not overdosed, but that in itself does not make this an Oscar contender. He is great as the Joker. Let me say that again. He is great as the Joker. But most of the depth is in the script (and considering how little is known about the Joker, that doesn’t in fact allow for a lot). He is scary and gross and terrifying. But Oscar noms are worth more than this. This is hype. Well supported hype for a film that hardly needs it.
There we go. Someone said it. Let the tomatoes fly.
It was fantastic.
A number of months ago Dafne asked me who my top five directors were. Chris Nolan was on the bubble at that time, but there is no longer any doubt in my mind. He is an outrageously talented visionary.
There are a few quibbles I have with it, but just minor things really.
The real question though is Heath Ledger. How good is he?
He is wonderful. He seems to have put it in the back of his mind that the Joker is one of the greatest arch villains of all time. The Joker has to earn that, just like anyone else - and he does. It must be a scary proposition to know that you are going to be measured against Jack Nicholson (and no less than one of Jack’s most iconic performances) and Heath is equal to the job. It is very impressive.
It’s also very creepy that at the end, the door is clearly left open for the Joker to return, when we know that he (or at least Heath) can not. It would not have been hard to re-shoot & restructure in such a way that the Joker was clearly gone for good.
But someone needs to say this…
It is NOT an Oscar worthy performance. That is being said for the sole reason that Heath has died after such a promising performance. He probably would have been a perennial had he not overdosed, but that in itself does not make this an Oscar contender. He is great as the Joker. Let me say that again. He is great as the Joker. But most of the depth is in the script (and considering how little is known about the Joker, that doesn’t in fact allow for a lot). He is scary and gross and terrifying. But Oscar noms are worth more than this. This is hype. Well supported hype for a film that hardly needs it.
There we go. Someone said it. Let the tomatoes fly.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Some Women Give All Women a Bad Rep
This one just has to be put into posterity.
I’ve been trying some internet dating. So far it has resulted in one three month relationship that was nice, but had nothing at it’s core. Beyond that it’s been fun, but unsuccessful.
I had an excellent date with a delightful lady who agreed that we’d had an excellent time. Later she sent me an email telling me that she knew she’d be trying to change me and that she didn’t want that in her life. Okay. Fair enough. Not sure it’s a fully matured argument, but it’s not unreasonable.
There was the woman who found me later on Face book (who didn’t have my name to the best of my knowledge) and would NOT LEAVE ME ALONE.
There was the oddball who sent me a photo of her, her rifle and the deer she’d just killed with it. Props for bold presentation. Wrong audience, lady.
An awkward connection with an attractive friend of a friend who didn’t want to accept that I identified a deal-breaker in our first exchange. A nice seeming woman in all other respects, but she just didn’t understand that I would either have to constantly censor myself or she’d have to live in the shower of my contempt for something dear to her. Doesn’t sound like a good relationship to me, but some people apparently like abuse.
There have been a few totally pleasant meetings with women who seemed surprised when I made it clear at the end of the face to face that that would be all we’d be doing.
This story is about one of the latter-most situations. Two of them actually.
I don’t know when I first connected with Tracy (not her real name). A few weeks ago in any case. She had her defences up high, but I didn’t care. She was on an online dating service, she WAS looking for a connection. The messages progressed well. She was amusing and I amused her.
We decided that we should meet face to face, but we were collectively booked for the better part of a week. We set it all aside, agreeing that we’d reconnect after the upcoming weekend.
Then, one evening as I was on the site answering emails, or perusing photos I got an instant message from another user. I’ve only used the IM service on the site once before. It’s a lousy UI, and I’m not big on IM in the best of cases. I’ve never initiated an IM conversation, but I do accept them - ‘cause ya never know!
It was a decent conversation. But it was late. We agreed to message each other the next day and make plans. She ended up suggesting we get together at a place near both of us (she claimed to live on the Drive) that night after work. I had nothing up, so what the hell.
We met. It was a decent conversation. She was definitely interesting, but I knew very quickly that I wasn’t interested. The more I meet women, the more I think I don’t want to get together with another artist. I used to think it was just actors I was done with, but I suspect my moratorium may extend further. Jury is officially still out on that one - it’s not a simple equation.
As we wound up, she - let’s call her Carrie - gave me the somewhat ambiguous invitation “Want to come with me?” The answer was a polite ‘no thanks.’ She seemed surprised.
Allow me a moment to rant about women. How many times have we - guys - been given the message that ‘all I want is someone who is a good listener?’ “Innumerable times” is the answer. So the astute guys develop that habit. It gets practived to the point of instinct. But there is an issue that develops from that. Our ability to actually listen gets interpreted as interest above and beyond the moment. When all we are doing is being polite! I’m sure later I’ll discover that my ability to listen when I’m not interested has become a liability as women don’t know when I’m listening sincerely. Argh! Fuck!
So I’m thinking that the fact that I actually paid attention to her gave her the message that I was actually interested in her. That wasn’t the case. To be blunt - even a bit rude - if I was still on the longest dry-spell of my adult life I don’t know that I would have followed up on the vague invite. She may have just been saying “Hey I’m going to a ________. Want to come along?” Though that itself may have been a trial that eventually led to her bed. But not necessarily.
In any case, it’s moot. I wasn’t interested. She seemed a bit surprised. Perhaps even put out. (Oooh! Pun.) Maybe even…(and this is reading things in after the fact, and with more circumstantial information) …it seemed that I might be screwing up some wild plan.
So, that’s that. Farewell to Carrie. Pleasant enough, and I wouldn’t be adverse to running in her in the ‘hood and asking how her projects were going, but that was that.
I get through the weekend and it comes time to reconnect with Tracy and make plans. She chose Tuesday after work… which was a strange choice as neither of us, as it turned out, worked that day.
We met, had dinner. She was fun. Very lively and fun. I laughed a lot. Physically she was not really what I’d immediately think ‘holy shit, she’s hot’ about, but her genuinely winning personality could potentially tip the balance. There were some other factors which would prove an issue, but not insurmountable if things remained otherwise promising. No deal breakers.
After dinner we went for a walk. I don’t recall how we got onto it, but she started talking about her crazy roommate. This apparent nutbar who wouldn’t clean up after her dogs. Who would wake up at 7am and start hammering. HAMMERING!
I could totally relate. Those of you who know the epic of Erin living upstairs know the essence of my commiseration. I was totally on board with Tracy’s complaints. She told me how the roomie’d driven her so bananas that last week she snapped and had it out with her on Thursday afternoon. The roommate exhibited an utter dereliction of responsibility and capped it all off with this gem of a quote (which also recalled Erin for me) “you think I’m loud now, wait ‘til I bring a man home!”
Oh, the non-sequitur argument. Such a slam dunk of ‘WTF?’ stupidity. I was totally with Tracy in her frustration.
Then she dropped the bomb.
“She is on the site.” (Meaning the dating site.) “Her user name is ‘Hawk moon’ (not her real username).”
Carrie’s username had been “Hawk moon 71.” I stopped dead in my tracks. I don’t think I’ve ever done that before.
“Oh, have you talked with her online?”
“That is really familiar. There’s a chance.”
“Her real name is ‘Carrie.’”
Holy shit.
I played dumb from there out.
Have you done the math? I’ll lay it out for you, just to be certain.
What are the chances that a Carrie going under the name Hawk moon 71 is NOT the same Carrie whose roommate identifies her as Hawk moon? That’s the easy part. Thursday morning, Carrie and tracy have an argument about noise that culminates in the gem “wait ‘til I bring a man home!”
Later that night, I - who am already having an online chat with Tracy - get IM’ed by Carrie/Hawk moon 71 who fast tracks her way into a date with me the next night where she seems to try to get me to go home to bed with her.
Granted there are a few assumptions being made in this equation (that Tracy is missing the ’71’ from her roommate’s username; and that Carrie who I met was in fact trying to get me to go to bed with her.) but it certainly appears as though I almost became a pawn in an apparently really ugly roommate battle. In fact, I’m almost certain of it. The real question is: did Carrie hack Tracy’s account - or other wise pick me out as her mark in said war - or was that really just a huge co-incidence?
There is really only one piece of evidence that contradicts any of this and it’s quite easy to reconcile. Carrie claimed to live near me on the Drive. Tracy lives over near Main. The Drive and Main are not far apart, but I don’t think someone who live on Main would claim they lived on The Drive… unless they were manufacturing a reality for some reason.
I could be manufacturing my own reality on this matter myself, but I think Occam’s Razor dictates that this was a close call of weirdness for me.
Assuming all of that, Carrie did achieve part of her plan. I’m not getting involved with Tracy any further - though exploring it just a little farther would be illuminating - when I otherwise would have.
I’ve been trying some internet dating. So far it has resulted in one three month relationship that was nice, but had nothing at it’s core. Beyond that it’s been fun, but unsuccessful.
I had an excellent date with a delightful lady who agreed that we’d had an excellent time. Later she sent me an email telling me that she knew she’d be trying to change me and that she didn’t want that in her life. Okay. Fair enough. Not sure it’s a fully matured argument, but it’s not unreasonable.
There was the woman who found me later on Face book (who didn’t have my name to the best of my knowledge) and would NOT LEAVE ME ALONE.
There was the oddball who sent me a photo of her, her rifle and the deer she’d just killed with it. Props for bold presentation. Wrong audience, lady.
An awkward connection with an attractive friend of a friend who didn’t want to accept that I identified a deal-breaker in our first exchange. A nice seeming woman in all other respects, but she just didn’t understand that I would either have to constantly censor myself or she’d have to live in the shower of my contempt for something dear to her. Doesn’t sound like a good relationship to me, but some people apparently like abuse.
There have been a few totally pleasant meetings with women who seemed surprised when I made it clear at the end of the face to face that that would be all we’d be doing.
This story is about one of the latter-most situations. Two of them actually.
I don’t know when I first connected with Tracy (not her real name). A few weeks ago in any case. She had her defences up high, but I didn’t care. She was on an online dating service, she WAS looking for a connection. The messages progressed well. She was amusing and I amused her.
We decided that we should meet face to face, but we were collectively booked for the better part of a week. We set it all aside, agreeing that we’d reconnect after the upcoming weekend.
Then, one evening as I was on the site answering emails, or perusing photos I got an instant message from another user. I’ve only used the IM service on the site once before. It’s a lousy UI, and I’m not big on IM in the best of cases. I’ve never initiated an IM conversation, but I do accept them - ‘cause ya never know!
It was a decent conversation. But it was late. We agreed to message each other the next day and make plans. She ended up suggesting we get together at a place near both of us (she claimed to live on the Drive) that night after work. I had nothing up, so what the hell.
We met. It was a decent conversation. She was definitely interesting, but I knew very quickly that I wasn’t interested. The more I meet women, the more I think I don’t want to get together with another artist. I used to think it was just actors I was done with, but I suspect my moratorium may extend further. Jury is officially still out on that one - it’s not a simple equation.
As we wound up, she - let’s call her Carrie - gave me the somewhat ambiguous invitation “Want to come with me?” The answer was a polite ‘no thanks.’ She seemed surprised.
Allow me a moment to rant about women. How many times have we - guys - been given the message that ‘all I want is someone who is a good listener?’ “Innumerable times” is the answer. So the astute guys develop that habit. It gets practived to the point of instinct. But there is an issue that develops from that. Our ability to actually listen gets interpreted as interest above and beyond the moment. When all we are doing is being polite! I’m sure later I’ll discover that my ability to listen when I’m not interested has become a liability as women don’t know when I’m listening sincerely. Argh! Fuck!
So I’m thinking that the fact that I actually paid attention to her gave her the message that I was actually interested in her. That wasn’t the case. To be blunt - even a bit rude - if I was still on the longest dry-spell of my adult life I don’t know that I would have followed up on the vague invite. She may have just been saying “Hey I’m going to a ________. Want to come along?” Though that itself may have been a trial that eventually led to her bed. But not necessarily.
In any case, it’s moot. I wasn’t interested. She seemed a bit surprised. Perhaps even put out. (Oooh! Pun.) Maybe even…(and this is reading things in after the fact, and with more circumstantial information) …it seemed that I might be screwing up some wild plan.
So, that’s that. Farewell to Carrie. Pleasant enough, and I wouldn’t be adverse to running in her in the ‘hood and asking how her projects were going, but that was that.
I get through the weekend and it comes time to reconnect with Tracy and make plans. She chose Tuesday after work… which was a strange choice as neither of us, as it turned out, worked that day.
We met, had dinner. She was fun. Very lively and fun. I laughed a lot. Physically she was not really what I’d immediately think ‘holy shit, she’s hot’ about, but her genuinely winning personality could potentially tip the balance. There were some other factors which would prove an issue, but not insurmountable if things remained otherwise promising. No deal breakers.
After dinner we went for a walk. I don’t recall how we got onto it, but she started talking about her crazy roommate. This apparent nutbar who wouldn’t clean up after her dogs. Who would wake up at 7am and start hammering. HAMMERING!
I could totally relate. Those of you who know the epic of Erin living upstairs know the essence of my commiseration. I was totally on board with Tracy’s complaints. She told me how the roomie’d driven her so bananas that last week she snapped and had it out with her on Thursday afternoon. The roommate exhibited an utter dereliction of responsibility and capped it all off with this gem of a quote (which also recalled Erin for me) “you think I’m loud now, wait ‘til I bring a man home!”
Oh, the non-sequitur argument. Such a slam dunk of ‘WTF?’ stupidity. I was totally with Tracy in her frustration.
Then she dropped the bomb.
“She is on the site.” (Meaning the dating site.) “Her user name is ‘Hawk moon’ (not her real username).”
Carrie’s username had been “Hawk moon 71.” I stopped dead in my tracks. I don’t think I’ve ever done that before.
“Oh, have you talked with her online?”
“That is really familiar. There’s a chance.”
“Her real name is ‘Carrie.’”
Holy shit.
I played dumb from there out.
Have you done the math? I’ll lay it out for you, just to be certain.
What are the chances that a Carrie going under the name Hawk moon 71 is NOT the same Carrie whose roommate identifies her as Hawk moon? That’s the easy part. Thursday morning, Carrie and tracy have an argument about noise that culminates in the gem “wait ‘til I bring a man home!”
Later that night, I - who am already having an online chat with Tracy - get IM’ed by Carrie/Hawk moon 71 who fast tracks her way into a date with me the next night where she seems to try to get me to go home to bed with her.
Granted there are a few assumptions being made in this equation (that Tracy is missing the ’71’ from her roommate’s username; and that Carrie who I met was in fact trying to get me to go to bed with her.) but it certainly appears as though I almost became a pawn in an apparently really ugly roommate battle. In fact, I’m almost certain of it. The real question is: did Carrie hack Tracy’s account - or other wise pick me out as her mark in said war - or was that really just a huge co-incidence?
There is really only one piece of evidence that contradicts any of this and it’s quite easy to reconcile. Carrie claimed to live near me on the Drive. Tracy lives over near Main. The Drive and Main are not far apart, but I don’t think someone who live on Main would claim they lived on The Drive… unless they were manufacturing a reality for some reason.
I could be manufacturing my own reality on this matter myself, but I think Occam’s Razor dictates that this was a close call of weirdness for me.
Assuming all of that, Carrie did achieve part of her plan. I’m not getting involved with Tracy any further - though exploring it just a little farther would be illuminating - when I otherwise would have.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Palm Slapping Between Dix & Mr. Homosexual following a good leg-pounding in a wonderful matching swimsuit
Yeah, that was a long title... but it got your attention, right?
And it wasn't just a gimmick. It's totally relevant to this post.
I just came across this hysterical blog post about an unintentionally funny find/replace error.
I suspect I'm going to be giggling about this one all day - you deserve the same chance.
And it wasn't just a gimmick. It's totally relevant to this post.
I just came across this hysterical blog post about an unintentionally funny find/replace error.
I suspect I'm going to be giggling about this one all day - you deserve the same chance.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Abortion Hits the Big Time
A nice contentious post for Canada Day.
Henry Morgethaler has been named to the Order of Canada.
I think that that is awesome, and far too long in the coming.
I never really had a strong position on abortion one way or the other. I knew that I didn't think it was a positive thing personally, but I knew that that was a personal issue. Further, I knew that no matter what else I thought, it was important that any and every one else have to freedom to make their own choice on the matter.
On this my opinion hasn't changed terribly much. I do beleive that there are gray areas. Very gray. But I am loathe to put limitations on circumstances under which abortion is identified as a bad thing.
I've twice been in circumstances where abortion has been a direct factor in my life.
In both cases it was a situation where we slipped through the cracks in terms of statistics contraceptively.
Without getting into specifics...
In the first case we had been dumb, yet we still lost the contraception lottery.
I was shocked and upset at the prospect of parenthood, yet I was willing to bite the proverbial bullet and make the necessary changes in my life to own up to my contraceptive stupidity. Further, I don't think we would have been collectively bad parents. She already was a parent. Myself... well there's no owner's manual, right?
It was a significant time for me. I had never seriously considered the possibility of being a parent. But there it was. I warmed up to the idea quite quickly. I was ready - or as ready as I'll ever be. (This still holds true.) It wasn't ideal, but we'd do fine. It was then that I opened my mind to the real prospect of being a parent. Obviously it never happened. She decided to have an abortion. I suspect that it had something to do with my inital uncertainty. Or at least that became her excuse. We only ever seriously discussed it once. I arrived home to the news. We lay in bed for a few hours talking about options. I was non-committal. I had never thought about being a parent seriously. I had some mental housekeeping to do. And I did it. I prepped myself for being a father. Then, one day not much later, she told me she'd had an abortion. Not once had I been directly consulted. While I recognize that it is her body and that that alone ought to dictate whose choice it is, I do think it is the right of the father to know in advance - so at the very least they can wrap their head around the notion if they aren't actually prepared for it. In a best case scenario they would have a chance to put forth a considered argument against it. But it's not their choice. They should be kept in the loop. I wasn't.
I was mad. It was the end of our relationship - though it took a year for that to fully blossom. Though I have to admit that my life is probably better for it.
In the second case we REALLY slipped through the cracks statistically. We were using contraception 100% properly (though 100% properly is not 100% effective) and in doing the math backwards we are pretty certain it happened the very first time we had sex together. We were later engaged - we were serious about each other. But when we were hit with the prospect of being co-parents so early, it was utterly wrong. It was too soon, and I think sub-consciously I already knew she was an alcoholic. No good for parenting, let alone gestation. I was not happy about the idea, but I was totally ready for her to have an abortion. It was her second too.
I am very happy we didn't carry that one to term. It would have had fetal alcohol syndrome. What a terrible thing to be responsible for - not the child specifically, but to know that you allowed it to happen to the child. Not to mention that if I never speak to the would have been mother ever again, it will be too soon.
But upon that second - most accidental - abortion, I was determined that I never wanted to be in that position again. Having said that, if I were faced with having a baby with someone who would bring the worst of circumstances upon the child (such as FAS) I would seriously consider the option, and probably go with it in the end. That doesn't change the essential emotion. I don't want to ever have an abortion in a relationship ever again.
But I WANT THE CHOICE.
Previously when I was approximately opposed to the idea personally, it was always with the caveat (ask around, it will be confirmed if you drill deep enough) that I had never been in the position of having knocked someone up.
In my first circumstance, I was willing to follow through. I would have done my best. But it's probably best that it didn't happen - though there was no medical reason to back out. In the second, it may be mostly hindsight, but I am very thankful it didn't happen, medically and socially. Would I have got to that point if not for the first? I can't say. But I'm glad I did.
In any case I am extremely grateful for Henry Morgenthaler for breaking the ground. He is totally deserving of the Order of Canada. In a forward thinking society we should all be able to make personal decisions about how our lives are lived. It is responsible to have children under responsible conditions. I can't thoroughly claim that I would have been doing it in either circumstance. We owe it to the children.
A few last random thoughts:
Only stupid people are breeding. I don't know who first put forth that notion - it wasn't Harvey Danger. But it's very true. I don't know how we can ever beat that one.
Where do we draw the line? If someone uses abortion as contraception, that strikes me as beyond the pale. How to determine that? I do not know. But perhaps if a pattern develops? A three strikes rule? That might work. If you can't learn your lesson in three times, you've got to start facing the music. If there is no clear mitigating circumstance (rape, severe invitro medical condition (a slippery slope, that one)) on the occasion of your fourth abortion - perhaps even the third... Tough luck you are expected to see this one through. There would be occasional issues, but there is little doubt in my mind that they would be significantly reduced.
In any case...
I am proud to live in a society that recognises the social value of abortion.
Henry Morgethaler has been named to the Order of Canada.
I think that that is awesome, and far too long in the coming.
I never really had a strong position on abortion one way or the other. I knew that I didn't think it was a positive thing personally, but I knew that that was a personal issue. Further, I knew that no matter what else I thought, it was important that any and every one else have to freedom to make their own choice on the matter.
On this my opinion hasn't changed terribly much. I do beleive that there are gray areas. Very gray. But I am loathe to put limitations on circumstances under which abortion is identified as a bad thing.
I've twice been in circumstances where abortion has been a direct factor in my life.
In both cases it was a situation where we slipped through the cracks in terms of statistics contraceptively.
Without getting into specifics...
In the first case we had been dumb, yet we still lost the contraception lottery.
I was shocked and upset at the prospect of parenthood, yet I was willing to bite the proverbial bullet and make the necessary changes in my life to own up to my contraceptive stupidity. Further, I don't think we would have been collectively bad parents. She already was a parent. Myself... well there's no owner's manual, right?
It was a significant time for me. I had never seriously considered the possibility of being a parent. But there it was. I warmed up to the idea quite quickly. I was ready - or as ready as I'll ever be. (This still holds true.) It wasn't ideal, but we'd do fine. It was then that I opened my mind to the real prospect of being a parent. Obviously it never happened. She decided to have an abortion. I suspect that it had something to do with my inital uncertainty. Or at least that became her excuse. We only ever seriously discussed it once. I arrived home to the news. We lay in bed for a few hours talking about options. I was non-committal. I had never thought about being a parent seriously. I had some mental housekeeping to do. And I did it. I prepped myself for being a father. Then, one day not much later, she told me she'd had an abortion. Not once had I been directly consulted. While I recognize that it is her body and that that alone ought to dictate whose choice it is, I do think it is the right of the father to know in advance - so at the very least they can wrap their head around the notion if they aren't actually prepared for it. In a best case scenario they would have a chance to put forth a considered argument against it. But it's not their choice. They should be kept in the loop. I wasn't.
I was mad. It was the end of our relationship - though it took a year for that to fully blossom. Though I have to admit that my life is probably better for it.
In the second case we REALLY slipped through the cracks statistically. We were using contraception 100% properly (though 100% properly is not 100% effective) and in doing the math backwards we are pretty certain it happened the very first time we had sex together. We were later engaged - we were serious about each other. But when we were hit with the prospect of being co-parents so early, it was utterly wrong. It was too soon, and I think sub-consciously I already knew she was an alcoholic. No good for parenting, let alone gestation. I was not happy about the idea, but I was totally ready for her to have an abortion. It was her second too.
I am very happy we didn't carry that one to term. It would have had fetal alcohol syndrome. What a terrible thing to be responsible for - not the child specifically, but to know that you allowed it to happen to the child. Not to mention that if I never speak to the would have been mother ever again, it will be too soon.
But upon that second - most accidental - abortion, I was determined that I never wanted to be in that position again. Having said that, if I were faced with having a baby with someone who would bring the worst of circumstances upon the child (such as FAS) I would seriously consider the option, and probably go with it in the end. That doesn't change the essential emotion. I don't want to ever have an abortion in a relationship ever again.
But I WANT THE CHOICE.
Previously when I was approximately opposed to the idea personally, it was always with the caveat (ask around, it will be confirmed if you drill deep enough) that I had never been in the position of having knocked someone up.
In my first circumstance, I was willing to follow through. I would have done my best. But it's probably best that it didn't happen - though there was no medical reason to back out. In the second, it may be mostly hindsight, but I am very thankful it didn't happen, medically and socially. Would I have got to that point if not for the first? I can't say. But I'm glad I did.
In any case I am extremely grateful for Henry Morgenthaler for breaking the ground. He is totally deserving of the Order of Canada. In a forward thinking society we should all be able to make personal decisions about how our lives are lived. It is responsible to have children under responsible conditions. I can't thoroughly claim that I would have been doing it in either circumstance. We owe it to the children.
A few last random thoughts:
Only stupid people are breeding. I don't know who first put forth that notion - it wasn't Harvey Danger. But it's very true. I don't know how we can ever beat that one.
Where do we draw the line? If someone uses abortion as contraception, that strikes me as beyond the pale. How to determine that? I do not know. But perhaps if a pattern develops? A three strikes rule? That might work. If you can't learn your lesson in three times, you've got to start facing the music. If there is no clear mitigating circumstance (rape, severe invitro medical condition (a slippery slope, that one)) on the occasion of your fourth abortion - perhaps even the third... Tough luck you are expected to see this one through. There would be occasional issues, but there is little doubt in my mind that they would be significantly reduced.
In any case...
I am proud to live in a society that recognises the social value of abortion.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Wicked Puzzle Solving Game... featuring Time Travel
My head is exploding.
I can't stop playing this game.
It's a really great brain twister that REALLY forces you to think ahead... well ahead.
I can't stop playing this game.
It's a really great brain twister that REALLY forces you to think ahead... well ahead.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Commercial Drive Photo
I meant to post this weeks ago.
A photo of mine of Commercial Drive has been used for the Schmap Canada website.
A photo of mine of Commercial Drive has been used for the Schmap Canada website.
Naps - gooood.
This info graphic on napping was just too good not to try to share as far and wide as I can.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Six Word Memoirs - My Heart Breaking New Literary Addiction
I've found myself a new web-page. It is addicting beyond my imagination.
It came from a simple notion. Hemingway was once given a challenge. Write a story with six words. Just six - beginning, middle and end. His response was profound and tragic. "For Sale: Baby shoes. Never worn."
Smith Magazine challenged other famous authors. Including: Colbert, Eggers, Sedaris, and Chopra. They also solicited their many readers. Then they made it a book. "Not Quite What I Was Planning." They also gave it a sub-title. "Six word Memoirs by Famous Authors." It also includes their obscure contributions.
They are still taking new memoirs. New ones go on the web-site. Maybe eventually in a new book.
They are various in their impact. Curious, complete, sad, inspiring and funny.
I had to submit my own. "No time to wait for coda." I'll try again with more reflection.
It'll definitely make a good present.
It came from a simple notion. Hemingway was once given a challenge. Write a story with six words. Just six - beginning, middle and end. His response was profound and tragic. "For Sale: Baby shoes. Never worn."
Smith Magazine challenged other famous authors. Including: Colbert, Eggers, Sedaris, and Chopra. They also solicited their many readers. Then they made it a book. "Not Quite What I Was Planning." They also gave it a sub-title. "Six word Memoirs by Famous Authors." It also includes their obscure contributions.
They are still taking new memoirs. New ones go on the web-site. Maybe eventually in a new book.
They are various in their impact. Curious, complete, sad, inspiring and funny.
I had to submit my own. "No time to wait for coda." I'll try again with more reflection.
It'll definitely make a good present.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
A 'Meh' Moment in NHL History
The Wings won the Cup last night. It makes me happy. Pittsburgh is a really promising team with a heap of young talent that whether together or in other cities WILL win their share of Stanley Cups, but Detroit is just too damned good.
The current team has plenty of experience, yet isn't terribly old - Chelios and Hasek excepted.
In the final round, as good a fight as Pittsburgh put up - it often looked really evenly matched (the first seven periods of the series excepted) - there was barely a single stat that Pittsburgh led in for any relevant length of time. Sure, there were two games where the Penguins led on the scoreboard at the end of a game. In game three that was mostly because Detroit looked a little old for the second period and then couldn't catch up. They turned around and never looked weary again - even late in overtime in game five. In game five it was Fleury, whose outstanding goaltending outdueled Osgood for a game - most importantly in the last three periods of the game. Osgood looked like the goat in that game, but he was in fact solid straight through the series from start to finish. But when you shut-out the competition for nearly seven straight periods at the start of a series there is only one direction to go... I predict that that single direction was the reason he didn't win the Conn Smythe.
Zetterberg won the Conn Smythe. I've got no argument with that. If you saw game four you know that Detroit weathered nearly a full two minutes of 5 on three. If it had been 5 on Zetterberg it would have made no difference. He seemed to single-handedly killed that pair of penalties and nearly got a short-hander out of it to boot. It was totally fucking amazing. He also tied that Pittsburgh kid for points in the playoffs at 27.
Last time the Wings won the Cup - six years ago - the Conn Smythe was won, for the first time by a European. Niklas Lidstrom. Last night he did something else no European has ever done before - he was the first to hoist the Cup. The honour of recieveing the Cup goes to the team Captain. No European has ever Captained a Stanley Cup winner until now.
Historically I don't really see it as that momentous. But it is worth considering why it hasn't happened until now. Europeans have been playing the the NHL for longer than I've been alive. Granted, there wasn't a particularly big influx of them until the Russians started playing in the NHL - significantly Fetisov and Larionov, in 1989. Which wasn't so long ago really. Larionov played for Detroit for all three of it's previous Stanley Cups in the past 12 years - most recently 2002. Fetisov for the first two. It was a decade ago that the league made the two year All-Star game experiment of dividing the league between North American players and European Players, rather than East and West conferences. They couldn`t have done that if there wasn`t significant balance in the league. So, if in theory there were as many marquee players of European decent as North American a decade ago and more, then why did it take this long for one to Captain a team to victoryÉ Certainly, there was some reticence to making them Captains. But TEN YEARSÉ I haven`t looked at the stats. I`m sure some mining there would be illuminating.
What seemed far more interesting to me was who he handed it to. I always thought that there was something special being said in who the Cup was handed to first after the Captain. Some kind of acknowledgement, that `hey you are special to this team - this victory.` The two most significant being Steve Yzerman handing the cup to a wheelchair bound Vladimir Konstantinov in 1998 - which caused me to burst into tears ina bout a quarter of a second; and Joe Sakic wasting an entire two seconds between recieving the Cup from Gary Bettman and handing it over to Ray Bourque in 2001. Failing such obvious emotional choices there are other options, including any single one of; a stand-out player who DIDN`T win the Conn Smythe (which Borque was), a veteran workhorse who has likely played his last game (which Bourque was), a veteran who had finally won the Cup (Bourque for the trifecta), a goaltender who worked his ass off - which strikes me as the default choice. Last night Lidstrom passed the Cup to Dallas Drake. Drake is my age - which is to say that failing a Chelios-like stamina (which it`s safe to say he doesn`t have) he is going to retire any moment now. This was his first Cup.
The current team has plenty of experience, yet isn't terribly old - Chelios and Hasek excepted.
In the final round, as good a fight as Pittsburgh put up - it often looked really evenly matched (the first seven periods of the series excepted) - there was barely a single stat that Pittsburgh led in for any relevant length of time. Sure, there were two games where the Penguins led on the scoreboard at the end of a game. In game three that was mostly because Detroit looked a little old for the second period and then couldn't catch up. They turned around and never looked weary again - even late in overtime in game five. In game five it was Fleury, whose outstanding goaltending outdueled Osgood for a game - most importantly in the last three periods of the game. Osgood looked like the goat in that game, but he was in fact solid straight through the series from start to finish. But when you shut-out the competition for nearly seven straight periods at the start of a series there is only one direction to go... I predict that that single direction was the reason he didn't win the Conn Smythe.
Zetterberg won the Conn Smythe. I've got no argument with that. If you saw game four you know that Detroit weathered nearly a full two minutes of 5 on three. If it had been 5 on Zetterberg it would have made no difference. He seemed to single-handedly killed that pair of penalties and nearly got a short-hander out of it to boot. It was totally fucking amazing. He also tied that Pittsburgh kid for points in the playoffs at 27.
Last time the Wings won the Cup - six years ago - the Conn Smythe was won, for the first time by a European. Niklas Lidstrom. Last night he did something else no European has ever done before - he was the first to hoist the Cup. The honour of recieveing the Cup goes to the team Captain. No European has ever Captained a Stanley Cup winner until now.
Historically I don't really see it as that momentous. But it is worth considering why it hasn't happened until now. Europeans have been playing the the NHL for longer than I've been alive. Granted, there wasn't a particularly big influx of them until the Russians started playing in the NHL - significantly Fetisov and Larionov, in 1989. Which wasn't so long ago really. Larionov played for Detroit for all three of it's previous Stanley Cups in the past 12 years - most recently 2002. Fetisov for the first two. It was a decade ago that the league made the two year All-Star game experiment of dividing the league between North American players and European Players, rather than East and West conferences. They couldn`t have done that if there wasn`t significant balance in the league. So, if in theory there were as many marquee players of European decent as North American a decade ago and more, then why did it take this long for one to Captain a team to victoryÉ Certainly, there was some reticence to making them Captains. But TEN YEARSÉ I haven`t looked at the stats. I`m sure some mining there would be illuminating.
What seemed far more interesting to me was who he handed it to. I always thought that there was something special being said in who the Cup was handed to first after the Captain. Some kind of acknowledgement, that `hey you are special to this team - this victory.` The two most significant being Steve Yzerman handing the cup to a wheelchair bound Vladimir Konstantinov in 1998 - which caused me to burst into tears ina bout a quarter of a second; and Joe Sakic wasting an entire two seconds between recieving the Cup from Gary Bettman and handing it over to Ray Bourque in 2001. Failing such obvious emotional choices there are other options, including any single one of; a stand-out player who DIDN`T win the Conn Smythe (which Borque was), a veteran workhorse who has likely played his last game (which Bourque was), a veteran who had finally won the Cup (Bourque for the trifecta), a goaltender who worked his ass off - which strikes me as the default choice. Last night Lidstrom passed the Cup to Dallas Drake. Drake is my age - which is to say that failing a Chelios-like stamina (which it`s safe to say he doesn`t have) he is going to retire any moment now. This was his first Cup.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hockey Nirvana
Two posts in one day. I've been slack lately, so this is a change of pace - literally.
With two hours and counting 'til game one of the Stanley Cup Final I just couldn't let the moment go un-commented upon.
I am SO excited. I think most hockey fans are. When was the last time there was a match-up so promising in the final? The closest we've come most recently is Colorado v/ New Jersey in 2001. The drama of Mission 16W. That was a pretty great series. Seven games. The last one, if I recall was pretty one sided - more so than the 3-1 decision implies. But this series is still all promise. It could still be the greatest hockey series ever played. It really could. It is absolutley in the realm of possibility.
I've been looking forward to today since about half way through the second round, when it started looking realistic that the Wings and the Penguins could be facing off against each other for the cup.
I think they genuinely are the two best teams in the league - sorry Montreal fans. Wait a second, why am I sorry? I hate the Canadiens.
Detroit has been my second favourite team for about as long as I've been a hockey fan. It's been a good decade and a half to be Detroit fan. I expect them to win, but I don't expect it to be easy. I also expect that this will be the end of the glory years in Detroit - times are too hard there in the auto industry and that can only hurt the club. They may go back to being the Dead Wings of 25 years ago and further - the pre-Yzerman era. But for now... four cups in 12 years, they've made it to the conference finals or further as many additional times since '95, they've been 1st in thier division every season but three since '94 (and they won the Cup in two of those three years.), Since it's inception in 1986 only one team has won the President's Trophy more than twice - Detriot - SIX times. They are the closest thing to a dynasty left in hockey in the new millenium.
But the boys in Pittsburgh aren't going to be a pushover. Crosby and Malkin are undisputed superstars in waiting. I think we can expect that this Cup will be to Pittsburgh what the 82-83 thumping the Islanders gave the Oilers. They handed them their ass, but showed them what it took to be a great team, passing the torch in the process. I don't expect the Pens to get swept, but I doubt they can out perform the combination of winning experience and skill that has been steeping in Hockeytown for over a decade.
Okay... now there are only 90 minutes left.
With two hours and counting 'til game one of the Stanley Cup Final I just couldn't let the moment go un-commented upon.
I am SO excited. I think most hockey fans are. When was the last time there was a match-up so promising in the final? The closest we've come most recently is Colorado v/ New Jersey in 2001. The drama of Mission 16W. That was a pretty great series. Seven games. The last one, if I recall was pretty one sided - more so than the 3-1 decision implies. But this series is still all promise. It could still be the greatest hockey series ever played. It really could. It is absolutley in the realm of possibility.
I've been looking forward to today since about half way through the second round, when it started looking realistic that the Wings and the Penguins could be facing off against each other for the cup.
I think they genuinely are the two best teams in the league - sorry Montreal fans. Wait a second, why am I sorry? I hate the Canadiens.
Detroit has been my second favourite team for about as long as I've been a hockey fan. It's been a good decade and a half to be Detroit fan. I expect them to win, but I don't expect it to be easy. I also expect that this will be the end of the glory years in Detroit - times are too hard there in the auto industry and that can only hurt the club. They may go back to being the Dead Wings of 25 years ago and further - the pre-Yzerman era. But for now... four cups in 12 years, they've made it to the conference finals or further as many additional times since '95, they've been 1st in thier division every season but three since '94 (and they won the Cup in two of those three years.), Since it's inception in 1986 only one team has won the President's Trophy more than twice - Detriot - SIX times. They are the closest thing to a dynasty left in hockey in the new millenium.
But the boys in Pittsburgh aren't going to be a pushover. Crosby and Malkin are undisputed superstars in waiting. I think we can expect that this Cup will be to Pittsburgh what the 82-83 thumping the Islanders gave the Oilers. They handed them their ass, but showed them what it took to be a great team, passing the torch in the process. I don't expect the Pens to get swept, but I doubt they can out perform the combination of winning experience and skill that has been steeping in Hockeytown for over a decade.
Okay... now there are only 90 minutes left.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Defending the Music XXII: Also Rans & the Bullpen
I thought I was done, but there's been some lingering thoughts that I felt needed addressing. There are a number of groups which have never made the cut for various reasons. Some, though coming very close, just haven't quite had the personal appeal for me; others haven't been consistent enough to earn my faith to the degree that I am willing to accept their lesser works as wholeheartedly as their best works; and still others have fallen short by right of never developing a large enough body of work. Additionally, it occurred to me that there are a few artists that are hovering on the edge of me embracing them as completely as I do Pearl Jam or the Hip or any of the other acts on my list of true believers. As that's the most victorious category, I'll save it for last.
It's a pretty substantial list, so I won't spend much time commenting on individual acts, but rest assured they all came very close to being on my list of the real cream of the crop.
First up, the inconsistent artists. These are the folks who at some point in their career blew my mind with at least one full album, but throughout the rest of their career - which may or may not be on going - have been too hit or miss for me to get behind them universally.
The Alarm - I was (happily) tricked into seeing The Alarm on their practice gig at the long since defunct 86 Street Music Hall for their last full tour. Two of their last three albums are amazing, and they had some great stuff that presaged those moments in their earlier career. The real spectacular thing they did was break up on stage in 1991 - what I wouldn't have done to see that!
Alice in Chains - Dirt. Damn what a great disc. Jar of Flies was no slouch either... but they just didn't have the jam to keep up the pace.
Barenaked Ladies - Gordon, Stunt and the infamous Yellow Tape. Beyond that I've always found them to be pretty hit and miss. They did do a wicked concert though.
Beck - I totally expected Beck to be a one hit wonder. Mellow Gold was a remarkable and unique album in it's day. Odelay and Guero are also wicked albums that pretty much work top to bottom. I also don't think he's done a disc that hasn't had a great track or two on it... but they also all have a solid sampling of boring twaddle. Too bad.
BoDeans - I saw the BoDeans open for U2 in 1987. They were great! So were their first two albums. But beyond that they rarely made much music of value... arguably the theme to Party of Five: Closer to Free, is an exception.
Cracker - Kerosene Hat is one of the most awesome albums ever. Period. Nothing else the former Camper Van Beethoven frontman, David Lowery fronted project has done since - and arguably before - has done much for me at all.
Collective Soul - I'm actually surpised that these guys are still making music together. I thought they faded away after their fourth album - by which point I had quit finding them interesting... actually I pretty much only found them exceptionally interesting for their second (self-titled) album.
Counting Crows - A band that lost steam fast. August and Everything After was amazing. Everything after, wasn't.
Crash Test Dummies - The law of diminishing returns returns... Such a brilliant start. Some decent sophmore stuff and with a few bright moments to follow it was pretty much over. I actually met Brad Roberts at a party just as they went meteoric. I think he hadn't realized he was on the verge of stardom.
The Cult - Love and Sonic Temple were amazing albums. Electric was fun if flawed. In concert they were crap. Stumblingly drunk. Embarassing.
Frank Black - He's already on the list of honour for The Pixies, so falling short for the solo career is hardly a (pardon) black mark. I'm lumping all post Pixies Frank Black together. His first solo effort is awesome, as is Frank Black and the Catholics' Pistolero... but he's managed to put most of the rest of his career together with filler. So disappointing.
Great Big Sea - Though nowhere near the artistic attrition of the Crash Test Dummies, Great Big Sea's studio albums are each a little less than the one before. Too bad. Up and Play were both pretty wicked.
INXS - Kick and X - with a few scattered bright lights from their earliest days through to the death of Michael Hutchence. INXS V. 2.0 with J.D. fortune... god help us.
Nine Inch Nails - A brilliant and industry changing first album. I listened to Pretty Hate Machine in full for the first time in years last weekend. It was amazing. Broken is also a pretty great disc... but it all starts to sound the same after that. Almost ironic seeing as Trent Reznor was so original in the first place.
Pogues - If I should Fall From Grace With God is a spectacular work of celtic punk fusion. Fairytale of New York would probably get my vote for the best duet ever... which perhaps explains some of my worst relationships. Peace and Love isn't far behind, but outside of that the Pogues are pretty hit and miss.
Sinead O'Connor - I Do Not Want... was at one time one of the most listened to albums of my life. She has her moments before and after, but she's also pretty tiresome at times too.
Smashing Pumpkins - Billy Corgan. Brilliant and bat shit crazy. The brilliance didn't have enough legs on it to consistently lift their music to the level that made Siamese Dream the breakout that it was. Not even the solid, but flawed Mellon Collie...
Stone Temple Pilots - I always loved how STP experimented with their sound and knew no bounds with where they could go sonically... but it didn't always equal brilliance.
White Stripes - I'm breaking the rules here. There are several dozen White Stripes songs that together would make two or three amazing albums... unfortunately there isn't one single album full of them.
Next up, there are a number of artists, who are seen by many as being among the all-time greats - or on their way - who I do really like, but I don't embrace at the level that their own true believers do, despite recognizing and respecting their genius. I should mention, dividing artists accurately between this category and the first, was not always easy or clear.
Alanis Morissette - I was as surprised as anyone by her reappearance on the scene, and Jagged Little Pill was a spectacular album. She's had some other great moments too, but not enough for me. Oh, and... note to self - do NOT date this woman - have you heard how she savages her exes on her albums?
Beastie Boys - There are those for whom the art-rap of the Beastie Boys is the pinnacle of the white man's accomplishment in urban music. Actually, now that I've written that, I believe that that is the case for me too... I just don't think that that is enough to act as though the sun rises and sets on Mike D, MCA, Ad-Rock & Mix Master Mike.
Billy Bragg - At his best Billy Bragg is amazing. I've just never found that his best is totally in step with what I want to hear. Close... so very close.
Bright Eyes - Connor Oberst is pretty damned interesting, and I can see why he is looked upon as the vanguard of lo-fi. No doubt one day he will be a legend... just not in my mind.
The Cure - There is no single album by the Cure that blew me away... except for their singles album Standing on the Beach. But Robert Smith managed to pack every album with a handful of wicked ditties... and too much tiresome woe to really win me over in full.
David Bowie - If I take it on the chin for any one artist, I expect it to be this one. I do in fact really love a LOT of David Bowie. No artist on this list comes closer to making my true believers list than David Bowie. One of my favourite concerts of all time was the Sound and Vision tour. But when I consider putting him in the autoplaylist I keep getting stopped up by thoughts like 'ugh - that would mean having to listen to Glass Spider.'
Metallica - Another of those 'most influential bands of all time' that didn't specifically inspire me until well after their impact was long since apparent. I'm still not so hot on anything before And Justice for All....
Nick Cave - How can you not love Murder Ballads? I'm also a big Grinderman fan. And there aren't many musicians I'd rather sit down and chat over a pint with... but I've never completely bought into the music. Sorry Chief.
Public Enemy - I should almost put the mighty P.E. in the next category. They were truly tremendous, and perhaps only a white man could fail to recognize their complete genius. And I DO think Chuck D is a genius - to this day. But Flavor Flav gets more egregious with each subsequent reality show. Apocalypse `91 is one of my favourite albums of all time. Fight the Power is obviously one of the most influential individual songs ever recorded. There's more P.E. of value - but for me it's scattered, and the further you get from the ...Black Planet the scarcer it becomes.
Spirit of the West - I don't think there is a band that was loved by more people I went to university with than Spirit of the West. I was even mistaken as John Mann once, even though I look nothing like him (long story for another time). And the best of Spirit of the West has become among my favourite music, just out of osmosis from those days... but I just don't LOVE them the way my peers did.
Radiohead - A secret confession: Radiohead shouldn't really be on this list. I just don't like them that much. But at least they are current, they are seen by many as geniuses and I do own some of their music and like it. For this they earn a place - unlike Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Stones and the Beatles; all of whom I expect to be the artists that are most conspicuous by their absence. All of whom I am at least a little actively contemptuous of.
Rage Against the Machine - I was rather late to RATM. I was familiar with bits and bites of their music until their last album, Renegades, came out. Renegades didn't have a single song written by RATM on it. All covers. Brilliant noise. Going back through their catalogue I found a lot to like, but they never managed to totally enthrall me, top to bottom. ...top to RATM.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Mother's Milk was responsible for me putting a LOT of faith in the Chili Peppers. I went back in their catalogue looking for the same brilliance and never found it. I bought their next three albums looking for the same and only ever found it in bits and pieces. Shame.
They Might be Giants - I've got so much respect for the Johns. They have done so well for themselves by simply doing their own thing and not caring what the world thinks. But that same quirk means there`s an awful lot of weak spots in their catalogue for those of us who aren't totally devoted to them.
Then there are the artists whose career was simply too short - which in many cases is undoubtedly the proof of the scope fo their talent. But in each of these cases there was one to three albums that kicked ass. In many cases some of my favourite albums of all time. But it would be totally cheap to declare that I love everything they ever did, when they only ever relased an album or three.
Andrew Cash - One kick ass rootsy album. Especially the first half of it. Never saw him again.
Cutting Crew - I think I lost my virginity to The Broadcast. Their second album, The Scattering wasn't quite as good, but I think their ambient pop was ahead of it's time.
Faith No More - I don't count the pre-Mike Patton albums. But when he was their front man, they were the best funk metal band on the planet. Again - ahead of their time.
Guns & Roses - Technically G&R have more than three albums, but only three really count. Appetite for Destruction - one of the greatest albums ever. Lies - which was packaged with their earlier Live Like a Suicide disc (which I don't count.) Use Your Illusion - which while sold as two albums... came out the same day with the same artwork (in different colours) - it's the SAME album. Spaghetti Incident was all covers thus doesn't count. And if Chinese Democracy ever gets released... well I'll cross that bridge then, if one can even consider it a G&R disc.
Hothouse Flowers - Three really gorgeous albums. Rich and lustrous. I had tickets to see them - but they cancelled the concert the day before... and they never toured or recorded together again.
Jane's Addiction - Nothing's Shocking and Ritual de lo Habitual are collectively responsible for expanding my mind with regards to what music could be more than any other band's discs ever. Their reunion... not so much - though it was good to get a chance to see them play.
Mollies Revenge - You've never heard of them. The best album by a Vancouver band ever. Also a great show.
The Monks - Bad Habits was more responsible for my interest in punk music - yes, even more so than The Clash. I've never managed to get my hands on a copy of Suspended Animation, their second album. VERY hard to find.
Power Station - The sound of this album was so thick. Their second album turned into a Rod Stewart album - it was all downhill from there. Andy Taylor almost makes the list with his only solo album - equally fat sounding.
Robbie Robertson - A stretch. I know. Obviously The Band provided Robbie Robertson with a career before his career. His first self-titled solo album is a clinic in epic sounding rock. One of the best albums ever produced. His second, Storyville, is also pretty awesome. After that - his two Native American releases (the newest of which is a decade old) - are really albums with other people, though not quite bands in themselves... and not quite as good.
Rock & Hyde - I would have liked to be able to justify the Payolas on this list somewhere, but I can't. This is as close as it gets. One album - ten better tracks than any Payolas album anyhow.
The Silencers - Another stretch. The only Silencers' album I've ever been able to get my hands on, Blues for Buddha, is twenty years old. They released their tenth album this year. I suppose I could try harder to get those other nine albums - there has been some real effort, but in a way I don't want to ruin the magic of that one disc of divine aural pleasure.
Stone Roses - Their first album was the best music for smoking dope to of the 1990s. And then it all went to hell due to legal entreching of corporate music interests. Second Coming - their late arriving sophmore was a pale shadow, but had it's moments. It was probably best that they broke up thereafter.
Modest Mouse - I actually just saw Modest Mouse in concert (opening for R.E.M.) last night. I gotta say they're far more interesting when constrained by the studio. And I'm not sure that Isaac Brock's voice can continue to be interesting after another album - but they only release a full album every three years. And the addition of Johnny Marr... inspired.
Okay. That's it. This series is over. I'm going to find some thing else to yak about for a while. If/when I come back to music I'll tackle it from another angle.
It's a pretty substantial list, so I won't spend much time commenting on individual acts, but rest assured they all came very close to being on my list of the real cream of the crop.
First up, the inconsistent artists. These are the folks who at some point in their career blew my mind with at least one full album, but throughout the rest of their career - which may or may not be on going - have been too hit or miss for me to get behind them universally.
The Alarm - I was (happily) tricked into seeing The Alarm on their practice gig at the long since defunct 86 Street Music Hall for their last full tour. Two of their last three albums are amazing, and they had some great stuff that presaged those moments in their earlier career. The real spectacular thing they did was break up on stage in 1991 - what I wouldn't have done to see that!
Alice in Chains - Dirt. Damn what a great disc. Jar of Flies was no slouch either... but they just didn't have the jam to keep up the pace.
Barenaked Ladies - Gordon, Stunt and the infamous Yellow Tape. Beyond that I've always found them to be pretty hit and miss. They did do a wicked concert though.
Beck - I totally expected Beck to be a one hit wonder. Mellow Gold was a remarkable and unique album in it's day. Odelay and Guero are also wicked albums that pretty much work top to bottom. I also don't think he's done a disc that hasn't had a great track or two on it... but they also all have a solid sampling of boring twaddle. Too bad.
BoDeans - I saw the BoDeans open for U2 in 1987. They were great! So were their first two albums. But beyond that they rarely made much music of value... arguably the theme to Party of Five: Closer to Free, is an exception.
Cracker - Kerosene Hat is one of the most awesome albums ever. Period. Nothing else the former Camper Van Beethoven frontman, David Lowery fronted project has done since - and arguably before - has done much for me at all.
Collective Soul - I'm actually surpised that these guys are still making music together. I thought they faded away after their fourth album - by which point I had quit finding them interesting... actually I pretty much only found them exceptionally interesting for their second (self-titled) album.
Counting Crows - A band that lost steam fast. August and Everything After was amazing. Everything after, wasn't.
Crash Test Dummies - The law of diminishing returns returns... Such a brilliant start. Some decent sophmore stuff and with a few bright moments to follow it was pretty much over. I actually met Brad Roberts at a party just as they went meteoric. I think he hadn't realized he was on the verge of stardom.
The Cult - Love and Sonic Temple were amazing albums. Electric was fun if flawed. In concert they were crap. Stumblingly drunk. Embarassing.
Frank Black - He's already on the list of honour for The Pixies, so falling short for the solo career is hardly a (pardon) black mark. I'm lumping all post Pixies Frank Black together. His first solo effort is awesome, as is Frank Black and the Catholics' Pistolero... but he's managed to put most of the rest of his career together with filler. So disappointing.
Great Big Sea - Though nowhere near the artistic attrition of the Crash Test Dummies, Great Big Sea's studio albums are each a little less than the one before. Too bad. Up and Play were both pretty wicked.
INXS - Kick and X - with a few scattered bright lights from their earliest days through to the death of Michael Hutchence. INXS V. 2.0 with J.D. fortune... god help us.
Nine Inch Nails - A brilliant and industry changing first album. I listened to Pretty Hate Machine in full for the first time in years last weekend. It was amazing. Broken is also a pretty great disc... but it all starts to sound the same after that. Almost ironic seeing as Trent Reznor was so original in the first place.
Pogues - If I should Fall From Grace With God is a spectacular work of celtic punk fusion. Fairytale of New York would probably get my vote for the best duet ever... which perhaps explains some of my worst relationships. Peace and Love isn't far behind, but outside of that the Pogues are pretty hit and miss.
Sinead O'Connor - I Do Not Want... was at one time one of the most listened to albums of my life. She has her moments before and after, but she's also pretty tiresome at times too.
Smashing Pumpkins - Billy Corgan. Brilliant and bat shit crazy. The brilliance didn't have enough legs on it to consistently lift their music to the level that made Siamese Dream the breakout that it was. Not even the solid, but flawed Mellon Collie...
Stone Temple Pilots - I always loved how STP experimented with their sound and knew no bounds with where they could go sonically... but it didn't always equal brilliance.
White Stripes - I'm breaking the rules here. There are several dozen White Stripes songs that together would make two or three amazing albums... unfortunately there isn't one single album full of them.
Next up, there are a number of artists, who are seen by many as being among the all-time greats - or on their way - who I do really like, but I don't embrace at the level that their own true believers do, despite recognizing and respecting their genius. I should mention, dividing artists accurately between this category and the first, was not always easy or clear.
Alanis Morissette - I was as surprised as anyone by her reappearance on the scene, and Jagged Little Pill was a spectacular album. She's had some other great moments too, but not enough for me. Oh, and... note to self - do NOT date this woman - have you heard how she savages her exes on her albums?
Beastie Boys - There are those for whom the art-rap of the Beastie Boys is the pinnacle of the white man's accomplishment in urban music. Actually, now that I've written that, I believe that that is the case for me too... I just don't think that that is enough to act as though the sun rises and sets on Mike D, MCA, Ad-Rock & Mix Master Mike.
Billy Bragg - At his best Billy Bragg is amazing. I've just never found that his best is totally in step with what I want to hear. Close... so very close.
Bright Eyes - Connor Oberst is pretty damned interesting, and I can see why he is looked upon as the vanguard of lo-fi. No doubt one day he will be a legend... just not in my mind.
The Cure - There is no single album by the Cure that blew me away... except for their singles album Standing on the Beach. But Robert Smith managed to pack every album with a handful of wicked ditties... and too much tiresome woe to really win me over in full.
David Bowie - If I take it on the chin for any one artist, I expect it to be this one. I do in fact really love a LOT of David Bowie. No artist on this list comes closer to making my true believers list than David Bowie. One of my favourite concerts of all time was the Sound and Vision tour. But when I consider putting him in the autoplaylist I keep getting stopped up by thoughts like 'ugh - that would mean having to listen to Glass Spider.'
Metallica - Another of those 'most influential bands of all time' that didn't specifically inspire me until well after their impact was long since apparent. I'm still not so hot on anything before And Justice for All....
Nick Cave - How can you not love Murder Ballads? I'm also a big Grinderman fan. And there aren't many musicians I'd rather sit down and chat over a pint with... but I've never completely bought into the music. Sorry Chief.
Public Enemy - I should almost put the mighty P.E. in the next category. They were truly tremendous, and perhaps only a white man could fail to recognize their complete genius. And I DO think Chuck D is a genius - to this day. But Flavor Flav gets more egregious with each subsequent reality show. Apocalypse `91 is one of my favourite albums of all time. Fight the Power is obviously one of the most influential individual songs ever recorded. There's more P.E. of value - but for me it's scattered, and the further you get from the ...Black Planet the scarcer it becomes.
Spirit of the West - I don't think there is a band that was loved by more people I went to university with than Spirit of the West. I was even mistaken as John Mann once, even though I look nothing like him (long story for another time). And the best of Spirit of the West has become among my favourite music, just out of osmosis from those days... but I just don't LOVE them the way my peers did.
Radiohead - A secret confession: Radiohead shouldn't really be on this list. I just don't like them that much. But at least they are current, they are seen by many as geniuses and I do own some of their music and like it. For this they earn a place - unlike Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Stones and the Beatles; all of whom I expect to be the artists that are most conspicuous by their absence. All of whom I am at least a little actively contemptuous of.
Rage Against the Machine - I was rather late to RATM. I was familiar with bits and bites of their music until their last album, Renegades, came out. Renegades didn't have a single song written by RATM on it. All covers. Brilliant noise. Going back through their catalogue I found a lot to like, but they never managed to totally enthrall me, top to bottom. ...top to RATM.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Mother's Milk was responsible for me putting a LOT of faith in the Chili Peppers. I went back in their catalogue looking for the same brilliance and never found it. I bought their next three albums looking for the same and only ever found it in bits and pieces. Shame.
They Might be Giants - I've got so much respect for the Johns. They have done so well for themselves by simply doing their own thing and not caring what the world thinks. But that same quirk means there`s an awful lot of weak spots in their catalogue for those of us who aren't totally devoted to them.
Then there are the artists whose career was simply too short - which in many cases is undoubtedly the proof of the scope fo their talent. But in each of these cases there was one to three albums that kicked ass. In many cases some of my favourite albums of all time. But it would be totally cheap to declare that I love everything they ever did, when they only ever relased an album or three.
Andrew Cash - One kick ass rootsy album. Especially the first half of it. Never saw him again.
Cutting Crew - I think I lost my virginity to The Broadcast. Their second album, The Scattering wasn't quite as good, but I think their ambient pop was ahead of it's time.
Faith No More - I don't count the pre-Mike Patton albums. But when he was their front man, they were the best funk metal band on the planet. Again - ahead of their time.
Guns & Roses - Technically G&R have more than three albums, but only three really count. Appetite for Destruction - one of the greatest albums ever. Lies - which was packaged with their earlier Live Like a Suicide disc (which I don't count.) Use Your Illusion - which while sold as two albums... came out the same day with the same artwork (in different colours) - it's the SAME album. Spaghetti Incident was all covers thus doesn't count. And if Chinese Democracy ever gets released... well I'll cross that bridge then, if one can even consider it a G&R disc.
Hothouse Flowers - Three really gorgeous albums. Rich and lustrous. I had tickets to see them - but they cancelled the concert the day before... and they never toured or recorded together again.
Jane's Addiction - Nothing's Shocking and Ritual de lo Habitual are collectively responsible for expanding my mind with regards to what music could be more than any other band's discs ever. Their reunion... not so much - though it was good to get a chance to see them play.
Mollies Revenge - You've never heard of them. The best album by a Vancouver band ever. Also a great show.
The Monks - Bad Habits was more responsible for my interest in punk music - yes, even more so than The Clash. I've never managed to get my hands on a copy of Suspended Animation, their second album. VERY hard to find.
Power Station - The sound of this album was so thick. Their second album turned into a Rod Stewart album - it was all downhill from there. Andy Taylor almost makes the list with his only solo album - equally fat sounding.
Robbie Robertson - A stretch. I know. Obviously The Band provided Robbie Robertson with a career before his career. His first self-titled solo album is a clinic in epic sounding rock. One of the best albums ever produced. His second, Storyville, is also pretty awesome. After that - his two Native American releases (the newest of which is a decade old) - are really albums with other people, though not quite bands in themselves... and not quite as good.
Rock & Hyde - I would have liked to be able to justify the Payolas on this list somewhere, but I can't. This is as close as it gets. One album - ten better tracks than any Payolas album anyhow.
The Silencers - Another stretch. The only Silencers' album I've ever been able to get my hands on, Blues for Buddha, is twenty years old. They released their tenth album this year. I suppose I could try harder to get those other nine albums - there has been some real effort, but in a way I don't want to ruin the magic of that one disc of divine aural pleasure.
Stone Roses - Their first album was the best music for smoking dope to of the 1990s. And then it all went to hell due to legal entreching of corporate music interests. Second Coming - their late arriving sophmore was a pale shadow, but had it's moments. It was probably best that they broke up thereafter.
Last and far far far from least are a number of acts who I see the potential of that could concieveably make my list of True Believers some day.
Gavin DeGraw - They had better play "I Don't Want to Be" at my funeral.
Gomez - Gomez have been growing on me for years. The scope of thier sound is vast. Their latest, How We Operate, pretty much seals the deal. If their sixth album is as good as their previous ones, I'm going to have no choice but to add them to the list. Just thinking about them now menas that Girlshapedlovedrug will be stuck pleasantly in my head all day.
Kings of Leon - Just keep your eyes on these guys. They're awesome. My only fear is that after four albums they might start sounding like more and more of the same.
Les Dales Hawerchuk - Perhaps a wee bit pre-mature, but I really love these guys. I only barely grok French, which is a bit of a challenge, but this is the hungriest rock around. Love 'em.Modest Mouse - I actually just saw Modest Mouse in concert (opening for R.E.M.) last night. I gotta say they're far more interesting when constrained by the studio. And I'm not sure that Isaac Brock's voice can continue to be interesting after another album - but they only release a full album every three years. And the addition of Johnny Marr... inspired.
Okay. That's it. This series is over. I'm going to find some thing else to yak about for a while. If/when I come back to music I'll tackle it from another angle.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"This is Just to Say..."
Perhaps you are familiar with William Carlos Williams' poem "This is Just to Say." Apparently it's a classic, though I have only just heard of it myself. It was featured this past week on This American Life. You ARE familiar with This American Life, aren't you? If not, do yourself a favour and treat yourself to an occasional listen... I doubt you'll be able to keep it to merely 'occasional.'
This past week's episode was thematically about insincere apologies. Who hasn't made an insincere apology in their life? Particularly as a kid. I know I sure did. I must have done something somewhere along the way to my little sister that I was made to apologise for when I hadn't yet developed the capacity for genuine regret for my actions. These days I don't think I apologise if I don't mean it - I mean, what's the point?
"This is Just to Say" seems to have a spectrum of interpretation associated with it. Some people take the apology as sincere, others not so. I'm going to have to come down in the 'insincere' camp, but before I get into my argument, here's the poem itself:
THIS IS JUST TO SAY, by William Carlos Williams
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold
So....
Where exactly does he apologise? He doesn't! He makes a demand for forgiveness, but never actually apologises. "Probably saving for breakfast..."? Is it just me or does that stink of being something that he knew damned well (perhaps it was her habit to have plums for breakfast?) was the case and now he's trying to play dumb? "And so cold..." seems like a reflection of the quality of apology, doesn't it?
Anyhow, as an apology, I don't buy it.
On This American Life they had some of their regular contributors write their own 'This is just to say...' poems. I couldn't help myself. I had too much to not apologize for myself.
This is Just to Say
I forgive me
'cause
I know
You never will
-----
I called you
a drunk
and told people
you are
that particular
type of selfish
bitch
who would write
a hollow note
declaring
"This is just to say..."
-----
Whatever.
-----
You don't get it
And I don't
care
Waah waah
Eat shit
You stupid fuck.
-----
I fucked him
while we
were still engaged
I expected you
to believe
the contraceptive gel
was for us
Though I'd
been too distracted
by him
for months
to even think
of fucking
you
Forgive me
The anti-depressants
and booze
have compromised
my moral
compass
-----
Forgive me
for pretending
I'm sorry
It may not have
been 'cool'
but...
Seriously?
You expect me
to defend that?
-----
I could not
Think less
of you
if I tried
I've had it with
treating
Your fragile psyche
like a Fabrege egg
So...
Prepare for the worst
I could care less
if you
forgive me
-----
I'm sorry
You lost your job
because of me
convincing you
to stay
in bed
long enough
to give one more
blow job
Well -
what can I say?
I think my favourites are the first one and the extreme brevity of the third one. I'm hoping other folks will add their own versions - this has been heaps of cathartic fun.
This past week's episode was thematically about insincere apologies. Who hasn't made an insincere apology in their life? Particularly as a kid. I know I sure did. I must have done something somewhere along the way to my little sister that I was made to apologise for when I hadn't yet developed the capacity for genuine regret for my actions. These days I don't think I apologise if I don't mean it - I mean, what's the point?
"This is Just to Say" seems to have a spectrum of interpretation associated with it. Some people take the apology as sincere, others not so. I'm going to have to come down in the 'insincere' camp, but before I get into my argument, here's the poem itself:
THIS IS JUST TO SAY, by William Carlos Williams
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold
So....
Where exactly does he apologise? He doesn't! He makes a demand for forgiveness, but never actually apologises. "Probably saving for breakfast..."? Is it just me or does that stink of being something that he knew damned well (perhaps it was her habit to have plums for breakfast?) was the case and now he's trying to play dumb? "And so cold..." seems like a reflection of the quality of apology, doesn't it?
Anyhow, as an apology, I don't buy it.
On This American Life they had some of their regular contributors write their own 'This is just to say...' poems. I couldn't help myself. I had too much to not apologize for myself.
This is Just to Say
I forgive me
'cause
I know
You never will
-----
I called you
a drunk
and told people
you are
that particular
type of selfish
bitch
who would write
a hollow note
declaring
"This is just to say..."
-----
Whatever.
-----
You don't get it
And I don't
care
Waah waah
Eat shit
You stupid fuck.
-----
I fucked him
while we
were still engaged
I expected you
to believe
the contraceptive gel
was for us
Though I'd
been too distracted
by him
for months
to even think
of fucking
you
Forgive me
The anti-depressants
and booze
have compromised
my moral
compass
-----
Forgive me
for pretending
I'm sorry
It may not have
been 'cool'
but...
Seriously?
You expect me
to defend that?
-----
I could not
Think less
of you
if I tried
I've had it with
treating
Your fragile psyche
like a Fabrege egg
So...
Prepare for the worst
I could care less
if you
forgive me
-----
I'm sorry
You lost your job
because of me
convincing you
to stay
in bed
long enough
to give one more
blow job
Well -
what can I say?
I think my favourites are the first one and the extreme brevity of the third one. I'm hoping other folks will add their own versions - this has been heaps of cathartic fun.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Defending the Music XXI: A Million Different Voices Singing in Tongues
At last.
Number 21 of 21. The artist who was mocked, starting this entire series of posts, defending my choices for favourite music acts.
This is the only artist on the list who is an individual (though an argument could be made against that), and the timing is excellent as I saw him play live not 72 hours ago.
It was fucking amazing, and that should not be much of a surprize as he - and his band - have been making music together for over forty years.
I am speaking of Bruce Springsteen, and to a lesser extent, the E-Street Band. I will just as happily listen to the Boss's solo tracks as stuff with E-Street and lump it all together as Bruce Springsteen... and I am not alone.
We can safely fast forward fifteen years during which I was pretty much unaware of Springsteen. I knew he won an Academy Award for the song he wrote for Philadelphia and had been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and got married to one of his bandmates, but really I wasn't interested. The closest he came to really registering on my radar was when Rage Against the Machine (of all people) did a cover of one of his songs... which I found I actually quite liked.
Then someone flew a plan into a building in New York and changed the world.
Springsteen responded with what for me would proved to be his most important album. Some people saw it as opportunistic - capitalizing on the grief and disaster, but not me.
My friend Norm exhorted me to give The Rising a listen. I evaded it until he gave me a copy, at which point it became nothing but capriciousness to not give it at least a token listen. Musically it was a revelation for me. Damn he's a good song-writer - I suppose that ought to go without saying if someone is going to have as long and illustrious a career as he had had. In many ways The Rising said many of the things that were lingering in the back of my mind. He personalized the incident and stepped away from the cliches that had already developed. He was the only artist with the voice to say the things I needed to hear without getting all jingoistic about it.
Roughly a year later I had been cast in "Of Mice and Men." As is my practice, a ritual developed around the show for me - I won't get intot he philosophy of that here, though it may be worth commentiing upon at another time. In this case the ritual included walking each night to the theatre - about a 45 minute trip across town (as it turned out, usually in the pouring rain). I was going to need some music for the trip. The very first night, I stopped at a store to choose the disc that would be my ritual disc for the trip. It turned out to be a really easy selection. The thin edge of the wedge was already in. When I saw Springsteen's Greatest Hits disc on the shelf I knew that it was the appropriate choice - after all, the RATM song that I had liked had been "The Ghost of Tom Joad", so there was an obvious Steinbeck connection. That and the additional ties between Americana and my own developing musical tastes made it a shoe in.
Within a few months I also owned a copy of "Live in New York City." And within another year I pretty much owned his entire catalogue.
He remains one of the best song writers of the past fifty years, and proves it album after album. When his latest single was relased, Radio Nowhere, I was stunned that a man approaching retirement age could rock that hard.
Last week - a week ago tonight, in fact. I recieved a phone call from my friend Mark asking if I was a fan. I told him that I was and he asked me to come use his extra concert ticket. It didn't take any real provocation.
The concert was spectacular. He opened with my favourite song, 'Atlantic City', moved on to the hard rocking 'Radio Nowhere' and just kept on killing. During those first few songs I thought to myself that Bruce was looking his age, but 3 hours later he was looking a lot closer to the 35 years old he was back when he recorded the 'obscure outtake from Born in the USA', that they played for allegedly the first time ever live.
The raw energy of his performance was inspiring - and is legendary. On top of that, the nine members of the E-Street band make up a wicked group of musiciians who have been playing together for around 40 years... is it any wonder that they can turn a relatively sedate gospel-blues number like Reason to Believe into something that had more in common with heavy metal, with The Boss literally screaming through his harmonica (which was sonically awe inspiring, and something he apparently started doing after the best clip I could find of the song in concert).
I have only ever been to one other concert where there was such an air of mutual belonging. As Mark said, this show 'wasn't a concert so much as a revival.' The house was packed with true believers, and any doubt as to why they felt that way would have been put to rest long before the crowd leapt (and admittedly in come cases creaked) to it's feet for the opening chords of 'Born to Run'.
A week later I still have "The River" pleasantly coursing it's sad path through through my skull. It was amazing.
Number 21 of 21. The artist who was mocked, starting this entire series of posts, defending my choices for favourite music acts.
This is the only artist on the list who is an individual (though an argument could be made against that), and the timing is excellent as I saw him play live not 72 hours ago.
It was fucking amazing, and that should not be much of a surprize as he - and his band - have been making music together for over forty years.
I am speaking of Bruce Springsteen, and to a lesser extent, the E-Street Band. I will just as happily listen to the Boss's solo tracks as stuff with E-Street and lump it all together as Bruce Springsteen... and I am not alone.
Note that I only have one artist in my list of 21 who is an individual - Bruce Springsteen. He is that good. He can keep pace with 20 other bands that rely upon the creativity of an entire group.
I do recall hearing Born to Run and Thunder Road on my local radio station in Prince George, CKPG, as a kid. But I was hardly a Springsteen fan. I was well on my way towards being a punk rock kid by then. The chances of 'The River' making my playlist could not have been detected by the greatest science of the day. In fact I once allowed someone to play my guitar when I was about 15 and when he played 'The River' I felt the need to wash my poor instrument.
When Born in the U.S.A. came out my Dad bought it through Columbia Music House. My response at the time was something like "Aww, Dad, that album has been out for months. It's SO old." And sure enough it had seen two, or perhaps even three singles by that time. It would stay on the charts for fucking ever and it would seem like every song on the album made the top ten at one time or another. This is definitely hyperbole, but not by as much as one might assume. Seven of the twelve tracks on the album made the top ten and another, not even released as a single(!), cracked the top forty.We can safely fast forward fifteen years during which I was pretty much unaware of Springsteen. I knew he won an Academy Award for the song he wrote for Philadelphia and had been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and got married to one of his bandmates, but really I wasn't interested. The closest he came to really registering on my radar was when Rage Against the Machine (of all people) did a cover of one of his songs... which I found I actually quite liked.
Then someone flew a plan into a building in New York and changed the world.
Springsteen responded with what for me would proved to be his most important album. Some people saw it as opportunistic - capitalizing on the grief and disaster, but not me.
My friend Norm exhorted me to give The Rising a listen. I evaded it until he gave me a copy, at which point it became nothing but capriciousness to not give it at least a token listen. Musically it was a revelation for me. Damn he's a good song-writer - I suppose that ought to go without saying if someone is going to have as long and illustrious a career as he had had. In many ways The Rising said many of the things that were lingering in the back of my mind. He personalized the incident and stepped away from the cliches that had already developed. He was the only artist with the voice to say the things I needed to hear without getting all jingoistic about it.
Roughly a year later I had been cast in "Of Mice and Men." As is my practice, a ritual developed around the show for me - I won't get intot he philosophy of that here, though it may be worth commentiing upon at another time. In this case the ritual included walking each night to the theatre - about a 45 minute trip across town (as it turned out, usually in the pouring rain). I was going to need some music for the trip. The very first night, I stopped at a store to choose the disc that would be my ritual disc for the trip. It turned out to be a really easy selection. The thin edge of the wedge was already in. When I saw Springsteen's Greatest Hits disc on the shelf I knew that it was the appropriate choice - after all, the RATM song that I had liked had been "The Ghost of Tom Joad", so there was an obvious Steinbeck connection. That and the additional ties between Americana and my own developing musical tastes made it a shoe in.
Within a few months I also owned a copy of "Live in New York City." And within another year I pretty much owned his entire catalogue.
He remains one of the best song writers of the past fifty years, and proves it album after album. When his latest single was relased, Radio Nowhere, I was stunned that a man approaching retirement age could rock that hard.
Last week - a week ago tonight, in fact. I recieved a phone call from my friend Mark asking if I was a fan. I told him that I was and he asked me to come use his extra concert ticket. It didn't take any real provocation.
The concert was spectacular. He opened with my favourite song, 'Atlantic City', moved on to the hard rocking 'Radio Nowhere' and just kept on killing. During those first few songs I thought to myself that Bruce was looking his age, but 3 hours later he was looking a lot closer to the 35 years old he was back when he recorded the 'obscure outtake from Born in the USA', that they played for allegedly the first time ever live.
The raw energy of his performance was inspiring - and is legendary. On top of that, the nine members of the E-Street band make up a wicked group of musiciians who have been playing together for around 40 years... is it any wonder that they can turn a relatively sedate gospel-blues number like Reason to Believe into something that had more in common with heavy metal, with The Boss literally screaming through his harmonica (which was sonically awe inspiring, and something he apparently started doing after the best clip I could find of the song in concert).
I have only ever been to one other concert where there was such an air of mutual belonging. As Mark said, this show 'wasn't a concert so much as a revival.' The house was packed with true believers, and any doubt as to why they felt that way would have been put to rest long before the crowd leapt (and admittedly in come cases creaked) to it's feet for the opening chords of 'Born to Run'.
A week later I still have "The River" pleasantly coursing it's sad path through through my skull. It was amazing.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Defending the Music XX: How Long to Sing Their Song..?
I've been putting this off.
I was waiting for something specific to happen. Something relating to the band I'm dealing with in this post, but then the night it was supposed to happen (night before last) it was totally upstaged by something relating to the artist I've been saving for last! So I figure that it's shit or get off the pot time for both artists...
First up - U2.
Yeah, they are almost too easy a choice. But I do get to genuinely make the claim that I was a fan before they became huge.
I recall sitting on my friend Scott's bed when he snuck into his sister's room to borrow a record (you know records - those big black CDs with two sides) and put it on the stereo... the first U2 song I ever heard was Sunday Bloody Sunday. That strident riff permanently seared upon my ears.
I remained aware of U2 over the next year or two, even though I didn't really emotionally tie myself to them until the night of my senior prom.
I was a big fan of The Cult. Electric was released the same week as The Joshua Tree. I bought them both. For the next two weeks I listened to Electric non-stop and never cracked the U2 album. I don't recall what it was that finally inspired me to listen to it, but that evening as I was getting ready I pulled out the cassette and put it my bedroom deck. Before Bono's vocals on Where the Streets Have No Name cut in, I had sunk into my bed, rapt. I quit getting ready and simply listened to the entire first side. It was a life changing moment. As I drove out of the driveway (late) to pick up Shannon, my girlfriend, With or Without You came on the radio. It played again that night at the dance. There's no doubt that a moment in time can profoundly tie the music you hear to it and make it special, and perhaps that happened that night to some degree, but that first listen was so profound - the rest was just gravy. To this day, The Joshua Tree is my number one desert island disc. It is music as vast as the space between here and their Dublin home.
Six months later I was at BC Place with 50000 other true believers watching the best concert I have ever seen. The less than three days before had been the Enniskillen Bombing. If you've seen Rattle and Hum, the footage of Sunday Bloody Sunday was filmed the night of the bombing. They were still four extremely angry Irishmen the night I saw them. I'm betting that at that point in their career they had played few concerts that were more intense. It was awe inspiring.
Now, over twenty years later, they have managed to remain relevant. Not to say that they haven't had worrisome low-points (Pop, I'm looking at you.) but even those have grown on me, and they also allowed the band to rise again.
Never satisfied to rest upon their laurels they've constantly tweaked and updated their sound and techniques, and as amazing as anything else they are still the same four guys that started the band together in 1976. Their ability to put new songs into heavy rotation after being indoctrinated into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (something a band isn't even eligible for until they've been recording for twenty five years) makes the claims of a certain other self-proclaimed "Greatest Band on Earth" laughable. Here is their R&RHoF induction - it's wicked, and The Boss does a better job of canonizing them than I can. Trying, would just be embarrasing, I'll let him do my work for me: Part 1, Part 2, Bono's Acceptance, Adam's Acceptance, Vertigo & Larry's Acceptance, Edge's Acceptance & Still Haven't Found....
Indeed, with the way music has fractured (not a bad thing), U2 may well be the last band to ever unequivocably be the best. No doubt they always will be my best.
They are so huge, that there is a separate line item in the Irish revenue service's budget just for taxes collected from U2.
I could go on ad nauseum itemizing their achievements, but this is not intended to be a history. Leave that to Behind the Music, so let's skip to the recent past and glance a little ways back and project a bit forward.
A month or so ago I saw their new concert movie - U23D. It was amazing. This was the material 3D was made for. Sonically it is spectacular. These guys still put on an amazing concert. Additionally, the director of the film knew enough to put hte 3D camera in places where we'd get to see things which we normally don't. Seeing the crowd amorphously jump up and down in time ot the music from just about their heads was very cool in 3D - which really played up the speed of sound, as the crowd didn't actually jump as one, but in visible ripples towards the back of the stadium. But the most amazing technical sight was a lens flare in 3D. We do not naturally see lens flare with the naked eye, so we don't typically get to experience it with our binocular vision. All we ever see is the flattened version on a normal movie screen... but not this time. 3D lens flare is one of the first sights in the film. It's mind blowing. And it sets the stage for what follows.
U23D should do for Love and Peace or Else, what Live Aid did for Bad - make the song a career-classic.
A new album is on the way. It's been a while since they've fallen flat on their faces, so I'm prepared for that. But I have little doubt that like Pop and Rattle and (Ho) Hum before it, even if it is a disappointment, there will be diamonds in the ashes, even if it takes some digging to find them
It's been nearly 21 years since I first started considering the message, and I keep finding new depths to it. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is a manifesto to celebrate. U2, despite their outrageous success, continue to appreciate the journey and may they never content themselves with a destination. I aim to live my life the same way.
I was waiting for something specific to happen. Something relating to the band I'm dealing with in this post, but then the night it was supposed to happen (night before last) it was totally upstaged by something relating to the artist I've been saving for last! So I figure that it's shit or get off the pot time for both artists...
First up - U2.
Yeah, they are almost too easy a choice. But I do get to genuinely make the claim that I was a fan before they became huge.
I recall sitting on my friend Scott's bed when he snuck into his sister's room to borrow a record (you know records - those big black CDs with two sides) and put it on the stereo... the first U2 song I ever heard was Sunday Bloody Sunday. That strident riff permanently seared upon my ears.
I remained aware of U2 over the next year or two, even though I didn't really emotionally tie myself to them until the night of my senior prom.
I was a big fan of The Cult. Electric was released the same week as The Joshua Tree. I bought them both. For the next two weeks I listened to Electric non-stop and never cracked the U2 album. I don't recall what it was that finally inspired me to listen to it, but that evening as I was getting ready I pulled out the cassette and put it my bedroom deck. Before Bono's vocals on Where the Streets Have No Name cut in, I had sunk into my bed, rapt. I quit getting ready and simply listened to the entire first side. It was a life changing moment. As I drove out of the driveway (late) to pick up Shannon, my girlfriend, With or Without You came on the radio. It played again that night at the dance. There's no doubt that a moment in time can profoundly tie the music you hear to it and make it special, and perhaps that happened that night to some degree, but that first listen was so profound - the rest was just gravy. To this day, The Joshua Tree is my number one desert island disc. It is music as vast as the space between here and their Dublin home.
Six months later I was at BC Place with 50000 other true believers watching the best concert I have ever seen. The less than three days before had been the Enniskillen Bombing. If you've seen Rattle and Hum, the footage of Sunday Bloody Sunday was filmed the night of the bombing. They were still four extremely angry Irishmen the night I saw them. I'm betting that at that point in their career they had played few concerts that were more intense. It was awe inspiring.
Now, over twenty years later, they have managed to remain relevant. Not to say that they haven't had worrisome low-points (Pop, I'm looking at you.) but even those have grown on me, and they also allowed the band to rise again.
Never satisfied to rest upon their laurels they've constantly tweaked and updated their sound and techniques, and as amazing as anything else they are still the same four guys that started the band together in 1976. Their ability to put new songs into heavy rotation after being indoctrinated into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (something a band isn't even eligible for until they've been recording for twenty five years) makes the claims of a certain other self-proclaimed "Greatest Band on Earth" laughable. Here is their R&RHoF induction - it's wicked, and The Boss does a better job of canonizing them than I can. Trying, would just be embarrasing, I'll let him do my work for me: Part 1, Part 2, Bono's Acceptance, Adam's Acceptance, Vertigo & Larry's Acceptance, Edge's Acceptance & Still Haven't Found....
Indeed, with the way music has fractured (not a bad thing), U2 may well be the last band to ever unequivocably be the best. No doubt they always will be my best.
They are so huge, that there is a separate line item in the Irish revenue service's budget just for taxes collected from U2.
I could go on ad nauseum itemizing their achievements, but this is not intended to be a history. Leave that to Behind the Music, so let's skip to the recent past and glance a little ways back and project a bit forward.
A month or so ago I saw their new concert movie - U23D. It was amazing. This was the material 3D was made for. Sonically it is spectacular. These guys still put on an amazing concert. Additionally, the director of the film knew enough to put hte 3D camera in places where we'd get to see things which we normally don't. Seeing the crowd amorphously jump up and down in time ot the music from just about their heads was very cool in 3D - which really played up the speed of sound, as the crowd didn't actually jump as one, but in visible ripples towards the back of the stadium. But the most amazing technical sight was a lens flare in 3D. We do not naturally see lens flare with the naked eye, so we don't typically get to experience it with our binocular vision. All we ever see is the flattened version on a normal movie screen... but not this time. 3D lens flare is one of the first sights in the film. It's mind blowing. And it sets the stage for what follows.
U23D should do for Love and Peace or Else, what Live Aid did for Bad - make the song a career-classic.
A new album is on the way. It's been a while since they've fallen flat on their faces, so I'm prepared for that. But I have little doubt that like Pop and Rattle and (Ho) Hum before it, even if it is a disappointment, there will be diamonds in the ashes, even if it takes some digging to find them
It's been nearly 21 years since I first started considering the message, and I keep finding new depths to it. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is a manifesto to celebrate. U2, despite their outrageous success, continue to appreciate the journey and may they never content themselves with a destination. I aim to live my life the same way.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
"Expelled" Exposed
Not a lot to say here.
Just making sure anyone who might be interested in this clearing house of information on rectifying the misconceptions perpetuated by the film 'Expelled' (Sub-titled 'No Intelligence Allowed' without a hint of irony.) had a chance to find it easily.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Gawd bless Eugenie Scott.
Just making sure anyone who might be interested in this clearing house of information on rectifying the misconceptions perpetuated by the film 'Expelled' (Sub-titled 'No Intelligence Allowed' without a hint of irony.) had a chance to find it easily.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Gawd bless Eugenie Scott.
Friday, March 21, 2008
A Snack & A Half of Irony - Intelligent Design, Hypocrisy & Hilarity
Have you heard about 'Expelled'? The new film featuring Ben Stein (yes, he of the vast vats of trivial knowledge with which he defended his vast vats of money.)
It's a film pushing the Intelligent Design agenda.
A quick primer on Intelligent Design: It's the evolution of Creationism.
Essentially I.D. claims that life as we know it could not possibly be a random occurence thus it must have been designed by a greater intelligence. I'm not going to get into the details here it has been done elsewhere better than I can do. But I will state my opinion - which happens to align perfectly with the evidence. I.D. is a complete load of anti-scientific bullshit.
The most genuinely intelligent thing about I.D. is it's tactic. It IS creationsim. Do not be fooled. It claims to be science, but it's actual claims fail to adhere to the actual scientific method... let alone the facts. Creationists are using I.D. as a wedge into science education, and for the most part is is failing, but it is putting up a good fight.
You may recall a movement (which failed) to have creation taught in schools - PUBLIC schools - and presented in hte name of fairness as an alternate theory as to how we got here. The fairness argument went a LONG way. It appealed to a lot of people (myself included at one time) who don't believe in the bible's version of creation, but who do ultimately believe in a fair playing filed and letting people make up thier own minds. But here's the thing... it is NOT science. It is not falsifiable, it is not a self-correcting process, it does not make measurable predictions with any reliabilty. Therefore it CAN NOT be taught as science. Fine, offer a theology class in public schools, that's all dandy, I have little doubt that Evolution won't be allowed in the door. We don't teach math in drama classes, we don't allow french-horns from band into french classes, despite the common word. And thus, dressing creationism up and giving it a scientifically appealling name should not mean it is allowed in science classes.
That's the basic issue with I.D. It's a tactic, more than any kind of real movement. It is creationism - though they've tried very hard not to admit it (and again have failed, there were bound to be loose lips). It didn't have much of a chance really before people started to recognise it for what it was. But folks are cottoning on. And it's been happening quickly really. I don't mean that people are beginning to tear apart I.D.s claims - that happened almost the very second a the first scientist caught wind of it. What is happening is that the word is getting around.
I.D. lost a very important battle two years ago - the infamous Dover case. Kind of the monkey-trial of it's day... except that this time science won.
So the argument has come around that I.D. is not getting it's fair chance to be heard. It is being oppressed. It's voice is squelched by those mean and nasty rational thinkers. And THAT is what 'Expelled' is apparently about. How an apparently smart guy like Ben Stein ended up on the wrong side of this issue, I do not know. But it sure is disappointing. I suppose it was inevitable really. All the I.D. lobby had to do was search until they found themselves someone who has a reputation as being smart to be their champion. Too bad for Ben Stein they found him first - now he's losing cred as a smart guy. He's instantly regulated himself to the bargain bin of intellectuals. He is now little more than a game show host and 'that guy from Ferris Buehler.'
I need to take a moment to declare that I have yet to see 'Expelled.' I cannot really speak to it directly. But I don't have to in order to get to my final point. I have every intention of seeing 'Expelled' for the record. I want to know what I am talking about when I rant beyond the scope of this post. I want to make something known though... there is NO WAY IN (non-existent) HELL that I will pay to see this movie. They are not getting my money for their crappy bullshit cause. Buy I absolutely will bit-torrent it first chance I get. (Note: Bit-torrenting is wrong. Do not do it. It is stealing. I am in no way recommending the bit-torrenting of movies - except this one. And I would never bit-torrent a movie - except this one. Do not bit-torrent movies - expect this one... and only then if you, like me, have some kind of intellectual need to see it and an aversion to putting money in the producer's pockets.)
Okay...
So, believe it or not, that was all set up.
I recently found this blog post my PZ Myers. I recommend you read it yourself (and the post that followed it.) rather than take my summary, but that won't stop me from summarizing.
PZ - atheist blogger - was actually interviewed for 'Expelled.' Last night he went to a screening of it in Minneapolis with his family and friends. The producers noted this and had him removed from the premises... with the threat of arrest - presumably assuming he was there to make a stink of some sort with his posse. Now, that's kind of ironic - the movie they made to protest the oppression of their own voice, and called 'Expelled' - they prevented a vocal atheist from seeing for fear that he might voice his opinion... they expelled him. Just him. No one else in his group. His family and his friends all got into the movie without issue.
But wait! There's more!
Amongst PZ's friends who he came with.... the mac-daddy of modern atheistic philosophy and activism - RICHARD DAWKINS, author of 'The God Delusion.'
They let Richard Dawkins in without even realizing who he was. Fucking awesome. And utterly un-'Intelligent.'
It's a film pushing the Intelligent Design agenda.
A quick primer on Intelligent Design: It's the evolution of Creationism.
Essentially I.D. claims that life as we know it could not possibly be a random occurence thus it must have been designed by a greater intelligence. I'm not going to get into the details here it has been done elsewhere better than I can do. But I will state my opinion - which happens to align perfectly with the evidence. I.D. is a complete load of anti-scientific bullshit.
The most genuinely intelligent thing about I.D. is it's tactic. It IS creationsim. Do not be fooled. It claims to be science, but it's actual claims fail to adhere to the actual scientific method... let alone the facts. Creationists are using I.D. as a wedge into science education, and for the most part is is failing, but it is putting up a good fight.
You may recall a movement (which failed) to have creation taught in schools - PUBLIC schools - and presented in hte name of fairness as an alternate theory as to how we got here. The fairness argument went a LONG way. It appealed to a lot of people (myself included at one time) who don't believe in the bible's version of creation, but who do ultimately believe in a fair playing filed and letting people make up thier own minds. But here's the thing... it is NOT science. It is not falsifiable, it is not a self-correcting process, it does not make measurable predictions with any reliabilty. Therefore it CAN NOT be taught as science. Fine, offer a theology class in public schools, that's all dandy, I have little doubt that Evolution won't be allowed in the door. We don't teach math in drama classes, we don't allow french-horns from band into french classes, despite the common word. And thus, dressing creationism up and giving it a scientifically appealling name should not mean it is allowed in science classes.
That's the basic issue with I.D. It's a tactic, more than any kind of real movement. It is creationism - though they've tried very hard not to admit it (and again have failed, there were bound to be loose lips). It didn't have much of a chance really before people started to recognise it for what it was. But folks are cottoning on. And it's been happening quickly really. I don't mean that people are beginning to tear apart I.D.s claims - that happened almost the very second a the first scientist caught wind of it. What is happening is that the word is getting around.
I.D. lost a very important battle two years ago - the infamous Dover case. Kind of the monkey-trial of it's day... except that this time science won.
So the argument has come around that I.D. is not getting it's fair chance to be heard. It is being oppressed. It's voice is squelched by those mean and nasty rational thinkers. And THAT is what 'Expelled' is apparently about. How an apparently smart guy like Ben Stein ended up on the wrong side of this issue, I do not know. But it sure is disappointing. I suppose it was inevitable really. All the I.D. lobby had to do was search until they found themselves someone who has a reputation as being smart to be their champion. Too bad for Ben Stein they found him first - now he's losing cred as a smart guy. He's instantly regulated himself to the bargain bin of intellectuals. He is now little more than a game show host and 'that guy from Ferris Buehler.'
I need to take a moment to declare that I have yet to see 'Expelled.' I cannot really speak to it directly. But I don't have to in order to get to my final point. I have every intention of seeing 'Expelled' for the record. I want to know what I am talking about when I rant beyond the scope of this post. I want to make something known though... there is NO WAY IN (non-existent) HELL that I will pay to see this movie. They are not getting my money for their crappy bullshit cause. Buy I absolutely will bit-torrent it first chance I get. (Note: Bit-torrenting is wrong. Do not do it. It is stealing. I am in no way recommending the bit-torrenting of movies - except this one. And I would never bit-torrent a movie - except this one. Do not bit-torrent movies - expect this one... and only then if you, like me, have some kind of intellectual need to see it and an aversion to putting money in the producer's pockets.)
Okay...
So, believe it or not, that was all set up.
I recently found this blog post my PZ Myers. I recommend you read it yourself (and the post that followed it.) rather than take my summary, but that won't stop me from summarizing.
PZ - atheist blogger - was actually interviewed for 'Expelled.' Last night he went to a screening of it in Minneapolis with his family and friends. The producers noted this and had him removed from the premises... with the threat of arrest - presumably assuming he was there to make a stink of some sort with his posse. Now, that's kind of ironic - the movie they made to protest the oppression of their own voice, and called 'Expelled' - they prevented a vocal atheist from seeing for fear that he might voice his opinion... they expelled him. Just him. No one else in his group. His family and his friends all got into the movie without issue.
But wait! There's more!
Amongst PZ's friends who he came with.... the mac-daddy of modern atheistic philosophy and activism - RICHARD DAWKINS, author of 'The God Delusion.'
They let Richard Dawkins in without even realizing who he was. Fucking awesome. And utterly un-'Intelligent.'
Friday, March 14, 2008
Allies III - Anonymous
A short post this time.
Time to catch my number of declared Allies up with the Enemies... though I do have a few enemies ready to add when I feel a burning desire to post them. C'mon ya bastards! Push my buttons!
Meantime...
My last Enemy was Scientology largely for their actions of having the now infamous Tom Cruise video removed from the internet. Old news now, but I was not alone in my outrage.
The group Anonymous has led the charge. While I haven't participated in their actions, I am on their side and someday I expect I will be among the legion.
Worth adding... Jay Novella, co-host of the Skeptic's Guide (the podcast produced by the NESS, my last declared ally) has made no secret of the fact that Tom Cruise is his least favourite person on the planet... not that he (unlike Scientologists) knows anyone who hasn't spent the vast majority of his life on the planet.
Time to catch my number of declared Allies up with the Enemies... though I do have a few enemies ready to add when I feel a burning desire to post them. C'mon ya bastards! Push my buttons!
Meantime...
My last Enemy was Scientology largely for their actions of having the now infamous Tom Cruise video removed from the internet. Old news now, but I was not alone in my outrage.
The group Anonymous has led the charge. While I haven't participated in their actions, I am on their side and someday I expect I will be among the legion.
Worth adding... Jay Novella, co-host of the Skeptic's Guide (the podcast produced by the NESS, my last declared ally) has made no secret of the fact that Tom Cruise is his least favourite person on the planet... not that he (unlike Scientologists) knows anyone who hasn't spent the vast majority of his life on the planet.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Dilution of the World's Knowledge Base By the Crassest Form of Commerce
The internet is being diluted by bottom-feeding commercial ventures known as ‘affiliate marketing.’
Perhaps you are aware of it. Perhaps this is the first you’ve heard of it.
For the past 18 months I’ve been surrounded by it.
I work in an office where people have time – even are encouraged – to pursue additional projects outside of our business in tandem with their daily paid work.
Eighteen months ago two brothers who work in my office began evangelizing about how they were going to make a bajillion dollars and retire by age thirty. They had by sheer luck stumbled upon affiliate marketing and were going to use it to make their fortune.
They tried to recruit me to the notion too, but I was up to my ears in making a movie – something which in theory could actually make me my fortune, but more importantly was something that I was actually interested in spending my time doing, to the degree that even if I NEVER make a fortune at it, I’ll be happy to keep at it and never retire. Admittedly, my contempt had already begun.
So, what is Affiliate Marketing?
It sounds kind of like multi-level marketing – which calls up specters of Pyramid Schemes doesn’t it?
To the best of my understanding it falls short of being that loathsome, but it’s social affects are at least as insidious.
In short, how A.M. works is that you, the Affiliate Marketer picks a product.
It could be something semi-specific like Barbecue Equipment; or it could be something very specific like Coleman Barbecues. In any case it seems that you need to pick fairly specific items in order to be successful. “Food” is simply too broad.
You build a website about your product and utilize various techniques to ‘optimize’ how various search engines (Google being the Holy Grail) perceive your website. The hope is to make sure that any time anyone does a search for any of a number of related words that your site comes up on the first page of results – preferably as the number one hit.
There are various techniques for accomplishing this goal, all of which essentially centre upon taking advantage of the algorithms Google (and others) use to rank their pages. With your site optimized, you then (in tandem actually, but for simplicity lets pretend that these things happen in sequence) add a Google AdSense account to your page with all the ads tailored to the product category in question. But the real kicker is, you also source out merchants who offer kickbacks to anyone who essentially recommends their product on the web. Essentially you put links to their websites on yours and anyone who ‘clicks through’ to their site from yours and buys a product (sometimes just getting people to their site is worth money to you) puts a portion of the money spent in your account. The amount of money varies and there are other factors which I am leaving out for simplicity.
Let me be clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. This is perfectly good commerce on the surface.
For the people who began this form of marketing in the first place it was practically free money. They were able to create sites about items that paid big money for referrals and click-through sales. (Credit Cards and Porn are VERY high on this list.) They were also able to corner the market on maximizing the relevant words. They made metric fuck-tons of money for very little work. I think they actually probably had to burn money ‘cause they ran out of places to put it. But there is a law of diminishing returns as all the best products and words get used up and competition rises for all search words. More than anything, the competition has made it so that the days of building a site and walking away from it while it makes you oodles of cash are over. You need to constantly be updating, always trying to stay ahead of the competition for your words and always adjusting to the tweaks in the Google ranking system.
For at least nine months the boys struggled, hoping that through sheer force of will they would soon ‘rank-up’ for their selected product. They did see gradual advances, and a trickle of money. But the amount of time they were investing was grossly out of proportion to the cash they made. They were (understandably) losing faith.
I honestly don’t know what they did that changed their fates – I just haven’t ever listened closely enough when it has come up. I’m not prone to deliberate eavesdropping, but we’re all in the same room and sometimes the conversations get… loud and unavoidable. In any case one day everything changed. They had been on the admitted verge of giving up. They had tried everything it seemed.
With only a few tricks left in the bag they came upon a tactic which worked.
Suddenly they were on the first page for Google and Yahoo. I think they were even the number one hit for many of their words – though I’m not certain.
Suddenly they were making enough money that it actually made sense to be putting time into the project. (Still not a job I could be bothered with as I, for one, have always felt like I had a higher calling in my art, money or no.) And in very short order it caught on in the office. There are now no less than five people in the office building their sites to make their millions. As friends I do wish them well, but all the discussion (apart from being painfully boring to me) has illuminated the uglier side of the business. I don’t know that there is anything that can be done, but if more people have it in mind, then more can be thinking in terms of opposition to it.
The competition in the A.M. industry is diluting the internet.
Here is what happens.
One of the best ways to get search engine ranking is to develop links from and to other sites… the search engines can’t distinguish between a site that is yours or a site that is someone else’s – so it doesn’t really matter whose site it is. Blogs – especially well read ones – get plenty of links to them.
People link to their articles on Digg or Delicious or Stumble Upon or their own blogs or whatever.
So, I want to boost the traffic to my affiliate site on Barbecues. I write an article in my blog. I link to my site. (Or perhaps the Blog IS my site.) I also Digg myself on Digg and the other social bookmarking sites. If things go well, other people do too. I may even PAY people to link to my article. This is all technically legit, but it is delving into the realm of morally dubious.
Tomorrow I write another article, and I link to the first article – as well as all the linking I did in the first case. The next day I do it again. But perhaps I’m not really a writer – perhaps I don’t even really care about Barbecues (they are just a means to an end for me) and can’t even put my heart into writing a lame article every day (or even every week or so). So I take an old article and ‘re-write it.’ In this case, by ‘re-writing’ I mean I do a find/replace command on the article and my article about broiling t-bone steaks is now about broiling chuck steaks. Sure there are differences in technique, but they’re going to be nominal right? They’re both steaks! But then a month down the road, I’m feeling lazy again (or, as this is human nature we are talking about here, “lazier.”) so I replace “Chuck steaks” with hamburger patties. (After all they are both cow. Right?) The next month the article is about cooking salmon steaks – they’re both steaks, right? The next month; chicken – it’s all meat, after all. And so on.
This is clearly just propagating bad information now. Reductio ad absurdum you can soon enough be “writing” articles about barbecuing play-doh patties.
But there’s another technique which can not only lead down the same road, but is actually bad bad bad form. These ‘writers’ (and if they really were writers they would understand the crime (literal or figurative) of this) will find articles related to their products elsewhere on line (possibly even from other A.M. sites) and ‘re-write’ them using the same techniques. If you have made money as a writer, you probably just gasped in horror. Not only have I been in the room to hear the planning of this kind of plagiarism, I actually know someone to whom it has happened. When it happened right in front of me I couldn’t believe my ears! I am patiently waiting for it to happen again so I will have a fresh example in front of me so I can verbally rake the perp across the coals in a polite and well-considered way, with his crime staring him back in the face from his computer screen.
Let it be said – there ARE sites out there that are A.M. based businesses which are regularly disseminating good information. But they are outnumbered by the ‘bad ones’ and the bad sites are growing in number. I see it all the time where simple Google searches bring me to pages filled with information which is at best written by someone who could care less, and often severely faulty.
More and more the bad sites are better optimized for their relevant search words – ‘cause THAT is what the operators are spending their time doing.
People publishing good information are spending their time researching and writing relevant material.
It makes me mad and I wish there was a good answer to this. I suspect there isn’t. Commerce will rule the day, and the good information on the internet will continue to be diluted by dollar-hungry scum-bags who in many cases don’t even realize that they are behaving like scum bags.
Perhaps you are aware of it. Perhaps this is the first you’ve heard of it.
For the past 18 months I’ve been surrounded by it.
I work in an office where people have time – even are encouraged – to pursue additional projects outside of our business in tandem with their daily paid work.
Eighteen months ago two brothers who work in my office began evangelizing about how they were going to make a bajillion dollars and retire by age thirty. They had by sheer luck stumbled upon affiliate marketing and were going to use it to make their fortune.
They tried to recruit me to the notion too, but I was up to my ears in making a movie – something which in theory could actually make me my fortune, but more importantly was something that I was actually interested in spending my time doing, to the degree that even if I NEVER make a fortune at it, I’ll be happy to keep at it and never retire. Admittedly, my contempt had already begun.
So, what is Affiliate Marketing?
It sounds kind of like multi-level marketing – which calls up specters of Pyramid Schemes doesn’t it?
To the best of my understanding it falls short of being that loathsome, but it’s social affects are at least as insidious.
In short, how A.M. works is that you, the Affiliate Marketer picks a product.
It could be something semi-specific like Barbecue Equipment; or it could be something very specific like Coleman Barbecues. In any case it seems that you need to pick fairly specific items in order to be successful. “Food” is simply too broad.
You build a website about your product and utilize various techniques to ‘optimize’ how various search engines (Google being the Holy Grail) perceive your website. The hope is to make sure that any time anyone does a search for any of a number of related words that your site comes up on the first page of results – preferably as the number one hit.
There are various techniques for accomplishing this goal, all of which essentially centre upon taking advantage of the algorithms Google (and others) use to rank their pages. With your site optimized, you then (in tandem actually, but for simplicity lets pretend that these things happen in sequence) add a Google AdSense account to your page with all the ads tailored to the product category in question. But the real kicker is, you also source out merchants who offer kickbacks to anyone who essentially recommends their product on the web. Essentially you put links to their websites on yours and anyone who ‘clicks through’ to their site from yours and buys a product (sometimes just getting people to their site is worth money to you) puts a portion of the money spent in your account. The amount of money varies and there are other factors which I am leaving out for simplicity.
Let me be clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. This is perfectly good commerce on the surface.
For the people who began this form of marketing in the first place it was practically free money. They were able to create sites about items that paid big money for referrals and click-through sales. (Credit Cards and Porn are VERY high on this list.) They were also able to corner the market on maximizing the relevant words. They made metric fuck-tons of money for very little work. I think they actually probably had to burn money ‘cause they ran out of places to put it. But there is a law of diminishing returns as all the best products and words get used up and competition rises for all search words. More than anything, the competition has made it so that the days of building a site and walking away from it while it makes you oodles of cash are over. You need to constantly be updating, always trying to stay ahead of the competition for your words and always adjusting to the tweaks in the Google ranking system.
For at least nine months the boys struggled, hoping that through sheer force of will they would soon ‘rank-up’ for their selected product. They did see gradual advances, and a trickle of money. But the amount of time they were investing was grossly out of proportion to the cash they made. They were (understandably) losing faith.
I honestly don’t know what they did that changed their fates – I just haven’t ever listened closely enough when it has come up. I’m not prone to deliberate eavesdropping, but we’re all in the same room and sometimes the conversations get… loud and unavoidable. In any case one day everything changed. They had been on the admitted verge of giving up. They had tried everything it seemed.
With only a few tricks left in the bag they came upon a tactic which worked.
Suddenly they were on the first page for Google and Yahoo. I think they were even the number one hit for many of their words – though I’m not certain.
Suddenly they were making enough money that it actually made sense to be putting time into the project. (Still not a job I could be bothered with as I, for one, have always felt like I had a higher calling in my art, money or no.) And in very short order it caught on in the office. There are now no less than five people in the office building their sites to make their millions. As friends I do wish them well, but all the discussion (apart from being painfully boring to me) has illuminated the uglier side of the business. I don’t know that there is anything that can be done, but if more people have it in mind, then more can be thinking in terms of opposition to it.
The competition in the A.M. industry is diluting the internet.
Here is what happens.
One of the best ways to get search engine ranking is to develop links from and to other sites… the search engines can’t distinguish between a site that is yours or a site that is someone else’s – so it doesn’t really matter whose site it is. Blogs – especially well read ones – get plenty of links to them.
People link to their articles on Digg or Delicious or Stumble Upon or their own blogs or whatever.
So, I want to boost the traffic to my affiliate site on Barbecues. I write an article in my blog. I link to my site. (Or perhaps the Blog IS my site.) I also Digg myself on Digg and the other social bookmarking sites. If things go well, other people do too. I may even PAY people to link to my article. This is all technically legit, but it is delving into the realm of morally dubious.
Tomorrow I write another article, and I link to the first article – as well as all the linking I did in the first case. The next day I do it again. But perhaps I’m not really a writer – perhaps I don’t even really care about Barbecues (they are just a means to an end for me) and can’t even put my heart into writing a lame article every day (or even every week or so). So I take an old article and ‘re-write it.’ In this case, by ‘re-writing’ I mean I do a find/replace command on the article and my article about broiling t-bone steaks is now about broiling chuck steaks. Sure there are differences in technique, but they’re going to be nominal right? They’re both steaks! But then a month down the road, I’m feeling lazy again (or, as this is human nature we are talking about here, “lazier.”) so I replace “Chuck steaks” with hamburger patties. (After all they are both cow. Right?) The next month the article is about cooking salmon steaks – they’re both steaks, right? The next month; chicken – it’s all meat, after all. And so on.
This is clearly just propagating bad information now. Reductio ad absurdum you can soon enough be “writing” articles about barbecuing play-doh patties.
But there’s another technique which can not only lead down the same road, but is actually bad bad bad form. These ‘writers’ (and if they really were writers they would understand the crime (literal or figurative) of this) will find articles related to their products elsewhere on line (possibly even from other A.M. sites) and ‘re-write’ them using the same techniques. If you have made money as a writer, you probably just gasped in horror. Not only have I been in the room to hear the planning of this kind of plagiarism, I actually know someone to whom it has happened. When it happened right in front of me I couldn’t believe my ears! I am patiently waiting for it to happen again so I will have a fresh example in front of me so I can verbally rake the perp across the coals in a polite and well-considered way, with his crime staring him back in the face from his computer screen.
Let it be said – there ARE sites out there that are A.M. based businesses which are regularly disseminating good information. But they are outnumbered by the ‘bad ones’ and the bad sites are growing in number. I see it all the time where simple Google searches bring me to pages filled with information which is at best written by someone who could care less, and often severely faulty.
More and more the bad sites are better optimized for their relevant search words – ‘cause THAT is what the operators are spending their time doing.
People publishing good information are spending their time researching and writing relevant material.
It makes me mad and I wish there was a good answer to this. I suspect there isn’t. Commerce will rule the day, and the good information on the internet will continue to be diluted by dollar-hungry scum-bags who in many cases don’t even realize that they are behaving like scum bags.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)