I don't do drugs. I never have. There are several reasons for this. One is, I never had any positive drug role models. What I mean by this is, I've never known anyone really cool, who I really respect, who is a regular drug user. If I ever did know anyone like that throughout the course of my life, who knows, I might be some sort of druggie now. But, perhaps luckily, I never met that person. But it seems some people choose drug taking as a worthwhile activity to the exclusion of all other things. You know this already, so I'll move on.
The second reason is I don't make enough money to be a drug taker. From what I'm told it gets pretty expensive. Plus I'd much rather buy something like a CD or DVD, which, if I'm lucky will last forever, rather than a temporary drugs experience. That is also the reason why I don't drink that much either. Disregarding any health risks for the moment, drinking and drugs are temporary, intangible diversions that you cannot keep. They disappear forever after it's over. That's not good value for money. Additionally there are sickening after effects to watch out for. Which brings me to reason number three...
Scare tactics! In generations past, such as pre-60's, there was no institutionalized way of scaring students against drugs. There was no need for that then, it wasn't a problem or even a thought. But as those baby boomers grew up and the revolutions of the 60's happened, a big curiosity was there and the drug/hippie culture blossomed for a while. It was only natural that this would occur. But, inevitably, a "bad trip" followed and we saw all the negative after-effects of drug taking. We've all seen the footage of scrawny, bedraggled, unshaven hippies lying in the gutters of San Francisco. How horrible. To think these are the children of The Greatest Generation. It boggles (or should I say "expands") the mind.
So by the time my generation came around and was going to school in the 80's and 90's, big programs were put in schools to have teachers recount horrifying stories, and show equally horrifying films with the whole end result being "just say no". In the 80's, Nancy Reagan pushed this theme strongly, appearing on the most powerful program in media, Diff'rent Strokes, to promote her message.
So, naturally, we were used as guinea pigs to see who could be SCARED out of taking drugs. Sure, it didn't work in all cases, but it did in many and I'm sure it was worth the millions of dollars spent. The same with sex ed, another 60's by-product. Thanks to "free love", we all had to see hideous close ups of the advanced stages of syphilis and gonnorhea in health class. You gotta give it to the teachers of America: no one does a ham-fisted scare tactic like 'em. Except perhaps the Government. So while people inexplicably seem to still be procreating, that apparently failed, but their drug equivalent might have swayed a few impressionable minds besides me.
Fourth reason: Have you ever met a person who used to take drugs "back in the day", and you can't talk to them because they are operating on some strange wavelength that most humans are not tuned in to? Communication is impossible with them because their brains are fried because of their past activities. They may not still be doing drugs (maybe they can't remember how?) but the effects are certainly there today to annoy, baffle, confuse and irritate us all here in the present day. These people are mocked and ridiculed behind their backs and seen as huge, annoying losers. I don't want that to ever be me. I don't want to be in my fifties and have the younger generation see me as the joke of the previous generation.
The fifth reason is surely genetic and environmental. No one in my family is an addict so it's not in my DNA. And my life is good so I don't have to hide from it. So these are the reasons I am not a drug user. And I don't smoke pot because I am already lazy enough. If I started doing that I might become crippled. And I don't need "the munchies." So that's pretty insidious: it seems harmless but it makes you fat and lazy. Clearly that was the Japanese plan when they invented video games: make Americans fat and lazy so they can take over the world economy. But that's another story for another day.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
WPLR and "rock radio"
Wherever you live, there is a big "rock" radio station. You know what I'm talking about, the big, boring behemoth that only plays about 35 songs. They play those songs in an infinite, maddening repetition. Playing the same songs over and over is actually a torture tactic. It is used to get information by breaking the subject's will and making their grasp of sanity a little looser. Keeping that in mind, many of the same DJ's and on-air personalities have worked at WPLR, my local "rock" station for years, many of them well over ten. I would go out of my mind. But somehow they don't mind hearing the same songs over and over and over again, and saying the same things to their loyal listeners over and over and over again. Maybe it seemed like a fun job when it started, and now they are complacent and can't leave. But how do you explain the audience? I find it fascinating that a large section of the populace has no problem whatsoever being stuck in a rut. They don't mind -- nay, they even enjoy letting the same tired cliches and old chestnuts of songs wash over them. Perhaps they find the utter, stubborn lack of change and difference comforting in some lifeless way.
Let me just say that 90% of the music played on WPLR I have no problem with. Much of it is classic rock and will always be great. I don't want you to think I'm here to go after the actual MUSIC. That's far from the case. It's not the music's fault this and other stations play the bejesus out of them. Queen, the Who, The Cars, Kiss, Aerosmith, The Beatles, AC/DC, and Cheap Trick are some of my favorites that WPLR plays. Honorable mentions go to Pat Benatar and Billy Squier. Now, probably the top act that is overplayed on WPLR is the band The Doors. I have nothing against the Doors whatsoever. I don't have any of their albums, but I don't take issue with them in any way.
Sometime around 1991, when Oliver Stone's film The Doors came out, WPLR went into Doors overdrive syndrome and has not let up since. Perhaps it was some kind of marketing tie-in at the beginning, you know, "Play a lot of Doors music and that will be like covert marketing to sell tickets" or some such corporate conspiracy theory. But, somehow, even at the time of writing in 2009 and surely long after, the memo has been lost to take the Doors playlist down a notch or two.
The hacks that program WPLR (although surely now it's a computer -- a computer that doesn't need much space at all) don't seem to care whether you're a fan or not. They seem insistent on cramming Doors music down all of our throats. Who is commandeering this mission? And why? I mean, if you take away the DJ's talking (invariably about how they played "Break On Through" for the 9 trillionth time), commercials and Doors songs, you literally get about three extra seconds of something else. Probably dead air. Or the second most-played band, Lynrd Skynyrd. If they cared about the music of any of the bands they play, they could play more than just one or two of their most well-known and well-worn hits. Many of the artists have long careers and have many more songs they could use, but no. In some corporate boardroom somewhere, a room full of guys in suits decided amongst their charts and graphs that playing the same songs over and over makes a certain profit margin for the company and that's that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with music or talent or artistry. I believe the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" DOES NOT apply for the zombie-like fanbase of 'PLR.
Here's a transcribed commercial (please read in stereotypical "rock radio announcer voice"): "WPL-DOORS!!!! Nothing but Doors, every hour! Not ON the hour, for the FULL hour, EVERY hour! If we play ANY song by ANY other band, YOU win a cash prize! Hell, we'll just give you the damn radio station - 'cause it'll NEVER happen! And even if it did, we only have ONE CD! The greatest hits of.... THE DOOOOOOOORS!!!!!!!"
Okay, that was not a real commercial. But it very well could be. I mean, is Ray Manzarek at the console with a shiv, threatening the DJ's at shiv-point, saying "Play our stuff, we're not big enough yet, we need the constant publicity"?
It's just somewhat depressing that their view of the rock music world is so incredibly limited. There have been thousands upon thousands of bands since the 60's yet PLR and their ilk choose to only play a tiny, almost insignificant fraction of that. It's so narrow minded it beggars belief. New bands have no chance on stations such as this, and the WPLR model stifles creativity and cuts off lifeblood to struggling artists, many of which deserve a place on their roster. Consequently, concert attendance is down, CD sales are down, and "the scene", such as it is, suffers. Imagine if PLR put its weight behind emerging acts and "supporting the scene"...the difference would be huge because they reach so many more people than college radio. But thanks to the internet, stations like WPLR are becoming increasingly more irrelevant. And I say that's a good thing, because their outmoded, insensitive, unbelievably boring and creativity-deadening model should be shown the door. Or possibly, in a bigger building, "The Doors". Heh. That'll show 'em.
Let me just say that 90% of the music played on WPLR I have no problem with. Much of it is classic rock and will always be great. I don't want you to think I'm here to go after the actual MUSIC. That's far from the case. It's not the music's fault this and other stations play the bejesus out of them. Queen, the Who, The Cars, Kiss, Aerosmith, The Beatles, AC/DC, and Cheap Trick are some of my favorites that WPLR plays. Honorable mentions go to Pat Benatar and Billy Squier. Now, probably the top act that is overplayed on WPLR is the band The Doors. I have nothing against the Doors whatsoever. I don't have any of their albums, but I don't take issue with them in any way.
Sometime around 1991, when Oliver Stone's film The Doors came out, WPLR went into Doors overdrive syndrome and has not let up since. Perhaps it was some kind of marketing tie-in at the beginning, you know, "Play a lot of Doors music and that will be like covert marketing to sell tickets" or some such corporate conspiracy theory. But, somehow, even at the time of writing in 2009 and surely long after, the memo has been lost to take the Doors playlist down a notch or two.
The hacks that program WPLR (although surely now it's a computer -- a computer that doesn't need much space at all) don't seem to care whether you're a fan or not. They seem insistent on cramming Doors music down all of our throats. Who is commandeering this mission? And why? I mean, if you take away the DJ's talking (invariably about how they played "Break On Through" for the 9 trillionth time), commercials and Doors songs, you literally get about three extra seconds of something else. Probably dead air. Or the second most-played band, Lynrd Skynyrd. If they cared about the music of any of the bands they play, they could play more than just one or two of their most well-known and well-worn hits. Many of the artists have long careers and have many more songs they could use, but no. In some corporate boardroom somewhere, a room full of guys in suits decided amongst their charts and graphs that playing the same songs over and over makes a certain profit margin for the company and that's that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with music or talent or artistry. I believe the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" DOES NOT apply for the zombie-like fanbase of 'PLR.
Here's a transcribed commercial (please read in stereotypical "rock radio announcer voice"): "WPL-DOORS!!!! Nothing but Doors, every hour! Not ON the hour, for the FULL hour, EVERY hour! If we play ANY song by ANY other band, YOU win a cash prize! Hell, we'll just give you the damn radio station - 'cause it'll NEVER happen! And even if it did, we only have ONE CD! The greatest hits of.... THE DOOOOOOOORS!!!!!!!"
Okay, that was not a real commercial. But it very well could be. I mean, is Ray Manzarek at the console with a shiv, threatening the DJ's at shiv-point, saying "Play our stuff, we're not big enough yet, we need the constant publicity"?
It's just somewhat depressing that their view of the rock music world is so incredibly limited. There have been thousands upon thousands of bands since the 60's yet PLR and their ilk choose to only play a tiny, almost insignificant fraction of that. It's so narrow minded it beggars belief. New bands have no chance on stations such as this, and the WPLR model stifles creativity and cuts off lifeblood to struggling artists, many of which deserve a place on their roster. Consequently, concert attendance is down, CD sales are down, and "the scene", such as it is, suffers. Imagine if PLR put its weight behind emerging acts and "supporting the scene"...the difference would be huge because they reach so many more people than college radio. But thanks to the internet, stations like WPLR are becoming increasingly more irrelevant. And I say that's a good thing, because their outmoded, insensitive, unbelievably boring and creativity-deadening model should be shown the door. Or possibly, in a bigger building, "The Doors". Heh. That'll show 'em.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Revenge of the Left
Okay, so Barack "Barry" "Saddam" Hussein "Osama" Obama has somehow become the president. In all fairness to John McCain, he was up against huge odds vying to be another Republican commander-in-chief after eight years of that evil, evil despot George W. Bush. All the Democratic opponent had to do was just what Barry (what I call Obama) did. He won the election on ONE WORD: Change (of course). His version of "change" was hiring that breath of new, fresh air Joe Biden.
It's the revenge of the liberals from the Vietnam era. There are two schools of thought at odds here. One is the Barry school, which finds value in bombers like Bill Ayers who protested the Vietnam war by violently destroying property and endangering human lives. The other school is that of John McCain and his brethren: American heroes that suffered immeasurably for our country. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently "John McCain spent more time being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton than Barack Obama has spent in the U.S. Senate." I'm sad to report that the first school of thought won the day last tuesday.
Was there voter fraud from Barry's buddies ACORN in this close election? Will the media investigate that? I think we all know the answer. Now, in America today it's somehow acceptable to have Black Panthers outside voting places with nightsticks? There's video of this should you wish to see it. Barry hasn't spoken out against it. Then again, that Black Panther could just be making sure enough people vote for John McCain. But Barry's friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and the so-called "weather underground" bombed a judge's house in the middle of the night as he presided over a Black Panthers trial. So Barry gets yet another pass. That's going to be one of the hardest things about the next four years (at least) -- the media will cover for, and spin his every mistake. Not simply because they love him and helped get him elected, but because, since they did that, THEY don't want to look stupid if the guy's a dud. So they will use the full force of the media to whitewash, or, should I say "half-whitewash" the truth.
How far we have come since 9/11. Perhaps we should be proud. Islamic terrorists committed this atrocity, and shortly thereafter we went into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. Seven short years later, we elect as our president a "former" Muslim whose middle name is Hussein. The world is upside down. I don't understand anything anymore.
Entire books have been written about why you shouldn't vote for Barry, so I won't get into a long diatribe here. Politics seem to be like a pendulum: a swing towards Bush, then a huge swing back towards a radical leftist. I just wish the pendulum hadn't swung so wildly back the other way. It's not just the media lies and deceit that are troubling, but it's Barry's relative-unknown status, until very recently, that is also concerning. Also his inexperience, seemingly endless parade of radical associations (His gargantuan arrogance and ego - the same beast which spawned his new version of the presidential seal - has led him to the attitude that the American people are stupid and are just going to forget Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, Rezko, ACORN, Khalidi and all the others(it's impossible to keep track of them all) that got him to where he is today; that he just, on a dime is going to turn centrist out of nowhere, with no evidence whatsoever to support that...why do you think liberals are so happy he won? Is that just a coincidence? Or do they know the truth, that he is just another left winger like them), his socialist policies that have never worked anywhere in the world before (but he's smarter than you; he can decide what to do with your money better than you can), and his smug arrogance...it's that this young punk sees more value in people like Ayers than in people like John McCain, who is as close to an American hero as we have right now. And it is always sad when the hero loses.
It's the revenge of the liberals from the Vietnam era. There are two schools of thought at odds here. One is the Barry school, which finds value in bombers like Bill Ayers who protested the Vietnam war by violently destroying property and endangering human lives. The other school is that of John McCain and his brethren: American heroes that suffered immeasurably for our country. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently "John McCain spent more time being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton than Barack Obama has spent in the U.S. Senate." I'm sad to report that the first school of thought won the day last tuesday.
Was there voter fraud from Barry's buddies ACORN in this close election? Will the media investigate that? I think we all know the answer. Now, in America today it's somehow acceptable to have Black Panthers outside voting places with nightsticks? There's video of this should you wish to see it. Barry hasn't spoken out against it. Then again, that Black Panther could just be making sure enough people vote for John McCain. But Barry's friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and the so-called "weather underground" bombed a judge's house in the middle of the night as he presided over a Black Panthers trial. So Barry gets yet another pass. That's going to be one of the hardest things about the next four years (at least) -- the media will cover for, and spin his every mistake. Not simply because they love him and helped get him elected, but because, since they did that, THEY don't want to look stupid if the guy's a dud. So they will use the full force of the media to whitewash, or, should I say "half-whitewash" the truth.
How far we have come since 9/11. Perhaps we should be proud. Islamic terrorists committed this atrocity, and shortly thereafter we went into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. Seven short years later, we elect as our president a "former" Muslim whose middle name is Hussein. The world is upside down. I don't understand anything anymore.
Entire books have been written about why you shouldn't vote for Barry, so I won't get into a long diatribe here. Politics seem to be like a pendulum: a swing towards Bush, then a huge swing back towards a radical leftist. I just wish the pendulum hadn't swung so wildly back the other way. It's not just the media lies and deceit that are troubling, but it's Barry's relative-unknown status, until very recently, that is also concerning. Also his inexperience, seemingly endless parade of radical associations (His gargantuan arrogance and ego - the same beast which spawned his new version of the presidential seal - has led him to the attitude that the American people are stupid and are just going to forget Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, Rezko, ACORN, Khalidi and all the others(it's impossible to keep track of them all) that got him to where he is today; that he just, on a dime is going to turn centrist out of nowhere, with no evidence whatsoever to support that...why do you think liberals are so happy he won? Is that just a coincidence? Or do they know the truth, that he is just another left winger like them), his socialist policies that have never worked anywhere in the world before (but he's smarter than you; he can decide what to do with your money better than you can), and his smug arrogance...it's that this young punk sees more value in people like Ayers than in people like John McCain, who is as close to an American hero as we have right now. And it is always sad when the hero loses.
Monday, October 27, 2008
NES games I have been playing
Most good NES games center around one memorable character and their journey. Nintendo wouldn't have achieved the success it has if it weren't for identifiable characters such as Mario and Link. It seems game developers knew that audience identification with a character - no matter how tenuous - could make or break a game. Is it any wonder that Ultra's Silent Service (1989) sucks so much? Just a fleeting glimpse of a guy in a beard is not enough. Sure, the controls seem dated today, but on the positive side, they could be considered a pre"cursor" (no pun intended) to the controls we are so used to today with DVD's. But that does not a good game make. Same with Acclaim's Star Voyager (1987). No central character = boring, stultifying tedium. So with that in mind I'm just going to give you a short sampling of some games I have been playing recently. Note they all have the central character thing in common.
1. KID NIKI (1987, Data East)
Bright colors, catchy, memorable music, silly and nonsensical enemies and just a general sprightly, upbeat tone make this Data East entry a winner. Data East was on quite a creative tear at this time, also rolling out the memorable items Karnov, Ring King and Breakthru, as well as Kid Niki, among others, all in 1987-88. Also noteworthy is Robocop from 1989. But memorable baddies such as Death Breath, who, rather futuristically, actually says "ki-yah" when attacking, an enemy that looks like Cookie Monster in a plastic bag, Horned Witch, and Mad Monk keep you engaged in the lightweight fun. And isn't that what it's all about?
2. THE ADVENTURES OF DINO RIKI (1989, Hudson)
Don't get confused by the similarly named hero from the above. This has some of the Hudson trademarks we all know and love: the title involves the word "adventure (s)" as in "Island", it takes a cute central character and drops them in a bucolic environment, and, most obviously, it's really freakin' HARD! As far as I know, this is a vertical scrolling game, I say that because level 2 could be horizontal scrolling, but I haven't gotten that far! Much like Hudson's Starship Hector (1990), level 1 is vertical, and level 2 is horizontal, but level 1 of Starship Hector is so incredibly, unbelievably hard, it is a miracle to get to level TWO, much less beat the game! So there could be more variation to Dino Riki than I am aware of right now.
Dino Riki is a caveman that can get progressively more impressive weaponry, all of the "caveman" variety (rocks, hammers, boomerangs, and fire). You jump on lilypads that disappear. It's fun and addictive, but very hard. But so are most NES games.
3. Whomp 'Em (Jaleco, 1991)
Yet another thing that is great about NES is that it is before political correctness. Characters in Contra (1988), Commando (1986), and Jackal (1988) and others smoke cigarettes and cigars, and ethnic stereotypes and broken english run rampant. This could NEVER happen today. Right along in this tradition is Whomp 'Em, the tale of a young Indian brave that fights the baddies with his magical pole. It's truly a beautiful thing. Of course it's not demeaning or insulting in any way. The Indian is the fearless hero. But still, fun and entertaining games like this would be censored and there would be lawsuits if it was released today. Like the great other Jaleco game, Shatterhand (also 1991), you can pick the levels and and do them in any order you choose, after completing level 1. Great graphics, imaginative levels, an original hero, great music, a taste of a bygone era and even a small dash of the forbidden, add to the fun of this great and worthy game.
4. Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu (1990, Hudson)
Perhaps I have saved the best for last today? Hudson strikes gold once again, proving you cannot go wrong with big, bright characters and backgrounds combined with excellent music. This game takes the "central character you care about" idea I've been talking about to it's logical conclusion - make the central character an actual person. Take a person that truly exists in this world, and who you most likely have rooted for in the movies, and make him the main character in the game. I can only imagine releasing a Jackie Chan game at this point in time in America was something of a gamble, as he was not as well known then. But the game most likely featured him because he was, and continues to be, one of the most, if not THE most, famous person in the world. But that aside, this game definitely lives up to the bigness of Jackie's stature - Hudson pulled out all the stops on this one. I'm sure Jackie himself would approve of the color, the gameplay, the CHINESE-NESS of the game, and, perhaps most memorably, the MUSIC, which is among the best I have heard in all NES's history. A must-have game, Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu may have paved the way from the gritty earlier Chan (Police Story, Crime Story) to the goofy, fun Chan (Mostly everything well-known in the U.S.), but it is a testament that that transition comes in the form of a little-known NES title. Great and recommended stuff.
1. KID NIKI (1987, Data East)
Bright colors, catchy, memorable music, silly and nonsensical enemies and just a general sprightly, upbeat tone make this Data East entry a winner. Data East was on quite a creative tear at this time, also rolling out the memorable items Karnov, Ring King and Breakthru, as well as Kid Niki, among others, all in 1987-88. Also noteworthy is Robocop from 1989. But memorable baddies such as Death Breath, who, rather futuristically, actually says "ki-yah" when attacking, an enemy that looks like Cookie Monster in a plastic bag, Horned Witch, and Mad Monk keep you engaged in the lightweight fun. And isn't that what it's all about?
2. THE ADVENTURES OF DINO RIKI (1989, Hudson)
Don't get confused by the similarly named hero from the above. This has some of the Hudson trademarks we all know and love: the title involves the word "adventure (s)" as in "Island", it takes a cute central character and drops them in a bucolic environment, and, most obviously, it's really freakin' HARD! As far as I know, this is a vertical scrolling game, I say that because level 2 could be horizontal scrolling, but I haven't gotten that far! Much like Hudson's Starship Hector (1990), level 1 is vertical, and level 2 is horizontal, but level 1 of Starship Hector is so incredibly, unbelievably hard, it is a miracle to get to level TWO, much less beat the game! So there could be more variation to Dino Riki than I am aware of right now.
Dino Riki is a caveman that can get progressively more impressive weaponry, all of the "caveman" variety (rocks, hammers, boomerangs, and fire). You jump on lilypads that disappear. It's fun and addictive, but very hard. But so are most NES games.
3. Whomp 'Em (Jaleco, 1991)
Yet another thing that is great about NES is that it is before political correctness. Characters in Contra (1988), Commando (1986), and Jackal (1988) and others smoke cigarettes and cigars, and ethnic stereotypes and broken english run rampant. This could NEVER happen today. Right along in this tradition is Whomp 'Em, the tale of a young Indian brave that fights the baddies with his magical pole. It's truly a beautiful thing. Of course it's not demeaning or insulting in any way. The Indian is the fearless hero. But still, fun and entertaining games like this would be censored and there would be lawsuits if it was released today. Like the great other Jaleco game, Shatterhand (also 1991), you can pick the levels and and do them in any order you choose, after completing level 1. Great graphics, imaginative levels, an original hero, great music, a taste of a bygone era and even a small dash of the forbidden, add to the fun of this great and worthy game.
4. Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu (1990, Hudson)
Perhaps I have saved the best for last today? Hudson strikes gold once again, proving you cannot go wrong with big, bright characters and backgrounds combined with excellent music. This game takes the "central character you care about" idea I've been talking about to it's logical conclusion - make the central character an actual person. Take a person that truly exists in this world, and who you most likely have rooted for in the movies, and make him the main character in the game. I can only imagine releasing a Jackie Chan game at this point in time in America was something of a gamble, as he was not as well known then. But the game most likely featured him because he was, and continues to be, one of the most, if not THE most, famous person in the world. But that aside, this game definitely lives up to the bigness of Jackie's stature - Hudson pulled out all the stops on this one. I'm sure Jackie himself would approve of the color, the gameplay, the CHINESE-NESS of the game, and, perhaps most memorably, the MUSIC, which is among the best I have heard in all NES's history. A must-have game, Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu may have paved the way from the gritty earlier Chan (Police Story, Crime Story) to the goofy, fun Chan (Mostly everything well-known in the U.S.), but it is a testament that that transition comes in the form of a little-known NES title. Great and recommended stuff.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My records WILL be in heaven, stop arguing with me!
There was a metal band in the 80's and early 90's called VIKING. They released two albums on the Metal Blade label. However, before their second and final album, entitled "Man of Straw" was completed, at least one member of the band went Christian and decided to change the lyrics to some of the songs because he (or they, I'm not really sure) felt that they did not fit with the Christian image he was now pursuing.
I once read an article with the main guy behind this decision. It was a while ago as you can tell from my lack of remembering the details, but that's just the point: something he said really stuck with me, and not in a good way.
I believe he works in a church now, and that is all well and good, but he said something to the interviewer to the effect of: "In heaven, your record collection won't be there. Heaven is much deeper than your record collection". First off, anyone reading this article is a fan of heavy metal music...EIGHTIES heavy metal music, so they're obviously not going to heaven. Secondly, this really offended my delicate sensibilities. My first question after reading that statement was, "What's the point of heaven if my record collection isn't there?"
The way I see it, if my record collection is not there, it's not heaven. Period, end of sentence. Why be good and follow all of God's laws here on earth if I won't even be reunited with the one thing that made living worthwhile in the first place?
I would also like to add that in my vision of Heaven, not only will my entire record collection be there, but also ALL the rare, hard to find CD's LP's, Cassettes, Cassingles, CD5's and anything else that I wasn't able to track down during my earthly existence or was too expensive or too out of reach, will be there as well. That gives me an incentive to follow those commandments, however many of them there are.
I know, this God guy was trying to make a point about how material possessions have no place in the Kingdom of the Lord. I'm not blind to that. But I'm just being realistic. Why would God take away happiness once I get to heaven? That's not fair, it doesn't make any sense, and, frankly, it's not very heavenly. Because if I'm supposed to go all eternity floating around in the sky without ANYthing involving Dee Snider, why bother?
I suppose I can gather from what the man said, that if your record collection is not waiting for you in heaven, the only way to be reunited with it in the afterlife is to go to hell. Now is that very Christian? Or should I say SISTER Christian? Hm.
I once read an article with the main guy behind this decision. It was a while ago as you can tell from my lack of remembering the details, but that's just the point: something he said really stuck with me, and not in a good way.
I believe he works in a church now, and that is all well and good, but he said something to the interviewer to the effect of: "In heaven, your record collection won't be there. Heaven is much deeper than your record collection". First off, anyone reading this article is a fan of heavy metal music...EIGHTIES heavy metal music, so they're obviously not going to heaven. Secondly, this really offended my delicate sensibilities. My first question after reading that statement was, "What's the point of heaven if my record collection isn't there?"
The way I see it, if my record collection is not there, it's not heaven. Period, end of sentence. Why be good and follow all of God's laws here on earth if I won't even be reunited with the one thing that made living worthwhile in the first place?
I would also like to add that in my vision of Heaven, not only will my entire record collection be there, but also ALL the rare, hard to find CD's LP's, Cassettes, Cassingles, CD5's and anything else that I wasn't able to track down during my earthly existence or was too expensive or too out of reach, will be there as well. That gives me an incentive to follow those commandments, however many of them there are.
I know, this God guy was trying to make a point about how material possessions have no place in the Kingdom of the Lord. I'm not blind to that. But I'm just being realistic. Why would God take away happiness once I get to heaven? That's not fair, it doesn't make any sense, and, frankly, it's not very heavenly. Because if I'm supposed to go all eternity floating around in the sky without ANYthing involving Dee Snider, why bother?
I suppose I can gather from what the man said, that if your record collection is not waiting for you in heaven, the only way to be reunited with it in the afterlife is to go to hell. Now is that very Christian? Or should I say SISTER Christian? Hm.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Food, part 1 (AKA: I Like Ice Cream)
PIZZA:
I don't consider myself a snob in any way, shape or form, and snobbishness in others is one of the qualities I hate most when I come across it. However, I reserve the right to be a snob about ONE thing: Pizza. Growing up in this area, I really had no choice. New Haven is known for two things only: Yale and Pizza. Because of the Wooster street area, and the large influx of Italians into the country in the olden days, the food known as "pizza" became prevalent. In Hamden alone, new pizza places continue to open. Clearly the market is not flooded and the demand for this wonder food is higher than ever. It was in this pizza-soaked environment that I have grown up and I know no other way of life. I have had every type of pizza and have spent, if you were to total it all up, probably months of my life eating pizza.
So with this in mind I will tell you some personal preferences. I believe pizza should have a thin crust. I think Chicago-style "deep dish" so-called "Pizza" is a corruption. Pizza is not made by putting a bunch of mushrooms in a ceramic bowl, covering it with dough, then sauce, then serving it. That is NOT pizza. Just call it something else. Chicago-style deep dish "pizza" should simply be renamed. It's a different food from what the rest of the world knows and recognizes as pizza.
Personally, I prefer pizza should have some kind of toppings. I'm not all that fond of just plain cheese pizza. I think it's boring. When I get sausage or pepperoni, I like to add onion. I think a sausage and onion or pepperoni and onion pizza gives the overall experience a contrast. The onion gives it a sweetness that works well with the meat and cheese. This simple addition gives it all another dimension and enhances the pizza-eating experience. If I think of more to say about pizza, I will add it later.
ICE CREAM:
In the interest of being edgy and having an in-your-face, extreme, awesomely outrageous, mountain-dew drinking attitude, I will say something so controversial, you might want to turn off your computer right now. I like ice cream. Yes, I went there. In these troubled times, I believe it takes a man of principle to say what he really believes. But in all seriousness, I think that ice cream is one of the greatest gifts of life and we should all be very happy and grateful it was invented in our lifetime.
Have you ever met anyone that has said they don't like ice cream? I feel like I have and it was a very troubling and confusing experience. You just want to shake them and scream "what is WRONG with you?" Disliking ice cream should be labeled a type of mental disorder and should be an internationally recognized defect of the human mind.
Now, there are many things you can put ON ice cream. In my opinion, most ice cream is fine on its own with no frills. But whipped cream is the most obvious choice for a topping and does enhance the whole experience. What onions are to pizza, whipped cream is to ice cream. Depending on where you live, you may prefer what are alternately known as shots, sprinkles or jimmies. Most people in Connecticut say "sprinkles", but it varies state to state. Just like hoagies, grinders or subs, or even the storied difference between soda and "pop", it is a regional thing. If you live in a place where soda is known as "pop" please just stop now. I would be remiss if I left out hot fudge. Words can't describe the beauty of hot fudge. You take FUDGE, which everybody knows and loves, and liquefy it. You think that would be good enough. But to heat it up is the stroke of genius and to add it to ice cream and whipped cream is almost too much of a good thing.
I have given you an example of a great meal: pizza and ice cream. Stay tuned for future entries about Mexican food, Indian food, soda, various meats and cheeses, and maybe a few surprises!
I don't consider myself a snob in any way, shape or form, and snobbishness in others is one of the qualities I hate most when I come across it. However, I reserve the right to be a snob about ONE thing: Pizza. Growing up in this area, I really had no choice. New Haven is known for two things only: Yale and Pizza. Because of the Wooster street area, and the large influx of Italians into the country in the olden days, the food known as "pizza" became prevalent. In Hamden alone, new pizza places continue to open. Clearly the market is not flooded and the demand for this wonder food is higher than ever. It was in this pizza-soaked environment that I have grown up and I know no other way of life. I have had every type of pizza and have spent, if you were to total it all up, probably months of my life eating pizza.
So with this in mind I will tell you some personal preferences. I believe pizza should have a thin crust. I think Chicago-style "deep dish" so-called "Pizza" is a corruption. Pizza is not made by putting a bunch of mushrooms in a ceramic bowl, covering it with dough, then sauce, then serving it. That is NOT pizza. Just call it something else. Chicago-style deep dish "pizza" should simply be renamed. It's a different food from what the rest of the world knows and recognizes as pizza.
Personally, I prefer pizza should have some kind of toppings. I'm not all that fond of just plain cheese pizza. I think it's boring. When I get sausage or pepperoni, I like to add onion. I think a sausage and onion or pepperoni and onion pizza gives the overall experience a contrast. The onion gives it a sweetness that works well with the meat and cheese. This simple addition gives it all another dimension and enhances the pizza-eating experience. If I think of more to say about pizza, I will add it later.
ICE CREAM:
In the interest of being edgy and having an in-your-face, extreme, awesomely outrageous, mountain-dew drinking attitude, I will say something so controversial, you might want to turn off your computer right now. I like ice cream. Yes, I went there. In these troubled times, I believe it takes a man of principle to say what he really believes. But in all seriousness, I think that ice cream is one of the greatest gifts of life and we should all be very happy and grateful it was invented in our lifetime.
Have you ever met anyone that has said they don't like ice cream? I feel like I have and it was a very troubling and confusing experience. You just want to shake them and scream "what is WRONG with you?" Disliking ice cream should be labeled a type of mental disorder and should be an internationally recognized defect of the human mind.
Now, there are many things you can put ON ice cream. In my opinion, most ice cream is fine on its own with no frills. But whipped cream is the most obvious choice for a topping and does enhance the whole experience. What onions are to pizza, whipped cream is to ice cream. Depending on where you live, you may prefer what are alternately known as shots, sprinkles or jimmies. Most people in Connecticut say "sprinkles", but it varies state to state. Just like hoagies, grinders or subs, or even the storied difference between soda and "pop", it is a regional thing. If you live in a place where soda is known as "pop" please just stop now. I would be remiss if I left out hot fudge. Words can't describe the beauty of hot fudge. You take FUDGE, which everybody knows and loves, and liquefy it. You think that would be good enough. But to heat it up is the stroke of genius and to add it to ice cream and whipped cream is almost too much of a good thing.
I have given you an example of a great meal: pizza and ice cream. Stay tuned for future entries about Mexican food, Indian food, soda, various meats and cheeses, and maybe a few surprises!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Snap Bracelets
I originally planned to call this blog entry "A Snap Bracelet Gallery", but I couldn't collect enough material online to make that happen the way I envisioned. I thought there would be a wealth of information on the snap bracelet (alternatively labeled the "slap bracelet" -- it must be a regional thing, like the way certain foods have different names in different places -- see the above blog "Food Part 1 (AKA I Like Ice Cream) for further details on this).
So despite the dearth of information on the snap (or slap, I prefer snap) bracelets, I will soldier on. They were a trend in the early 90's of a piece of thin plastic that you would "snap" on your wrist and it would curl into a bracelet. That's it. This trend caught on like wildfire, and why not? It's utter brilliance lies in its simplicity. Whoever invented these things is laughing all the way to the bank. I guess all it takes is one tiny little bolt of inspiration to come up with a trend that all the kids want. It doesn't matter if people call it "stupid" or "frivolous", it just has to have an addictive quality that easily influenced children want to be a part of. Woe be to you if you do not have a snap bracelet or think it is a dumb idea. You will be ostracized, at least until the trend inevitably dies, then you will be thought a hero for resisting the trend and it will look like you had a lot of foresight. Just kidding.
You know the world is going to hell when snap bracelets start becoming banned, and hated by teachers and parents because kids are cutting their wrists with them. That was the absolute end. Not just of this trend, but of everything in society. With political correctness on the rise at the time, and maybe a few kids scratching their wrists with them, these two things combined to create a furor and an outright BAN on snap bracelets. To my mind, that symbolizes the absolute end, the total weakness of the culture. When you can't even snap a bracelet on your wrist for God's sake, what else is there? What else to we have to cling to? Even the most inane and harmless trend for kids was banned. Unbelievable. It's all over, I tell ya. All over.
Perhaps there is a chance we could someday see the return of the snap bracelet. But kids today fancy themselves more sophisticated. They have their myspace and their facebook and their blackberry and their blackface and their bookface and whatever else in the world, and, sadly...VERY sadly, a cheap piece of plastic you snap on your wrist no longer has a chance.
So despite the dearth of information on the snap (or slap, I prefer snap) bracelets, I will soldier on. They were a trend in the early 90's of a piece of thin plastic that you would "snap" on your wrist and it would curl into a bracelet. That's it. This trend caught on like wildfire, and why not? It's utter brilliance lies in its simplicity. Whoever invented these things is laughing all the way to the bank. I guess all it takes is one tiny little bolt of inspiration to come up with a trend that all the kids want. It doesn't matter if people call it "stupid" or "frivolous", it just has to have an addictive quality that easily influenced children want to be a part of. Woe be to you if you do not have a snap bracelet or think it is a dumb idea. You will be ostracized, at least until the trend inevitably dies, then you will be thought a hero for resisting the trend and it will look like you had a lot of foresight. Just kidding.
You know the world is going to hell when snap bracelets start becoming banned, and hated by teachers and parents because kids are cutting their wrists with them. That was the absolute end. Not just of this trend, but of everything in society. With political correctness on the rise at the time, and maybe a few kids scratching their wrists with them, these two things combined to create a furor and an outright BAN on snap bracelets. To my mind, that symbolizes the absolute end, the total weakness of the culture. When you can't even snap a bracelet on your wrist for God's sake, what else is there? What else to we have to cling to? Even the most inane and harmless trend for kids was banned. Unbelievable. It's all over, I tell ya. All over.
Perhaps there is a chance we could someday see the return of the snap bracelet. But kids today fancy themselves more sophisticated. They have their myspace and their facebook and their blackberry and their blackface and their bookface and whatever else in the world, and, sadly...VERY sadly, a cheap piece of plastic you snap on your wrist no longer has a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)