Those of you who watch the show "Law and Order: SVU" know it is a show that can get pretty dark at times. It deals with serious, sensitive, and timely subject matter about the most "heinous" crimes perpetrated by the most twisted criminals out there.
However, the show wasn't totally devoid of humor, as Richard Belzer provided some comic relief, and even Ice-T and some of the other characters would let loose with some funny lines to break the tension and overall somber mood of the show.
The show premiered in 1999. Enter, in 2009, the character of "Stuckey", his very name denoting a highly inappropriate cartoonish buffoonery entirely out of place on SVU. Why a respected drama like SVU, which has won many awards, and whose lessons are taught in schools, would introduce an INTENTIONALLY ANNOYING character like Stuckey, is perplexing in the extreme.
For decades, the sitcom has introduced the "Intentionally Annoying" character for some cheap yuks. Notables include "Mama" from Mama's Family, "Schneider" from One Day at a Time, "Newman" from Seinfeld, and, perhaps most notably, "Urkel" from Family Matters. The idea being, when this character shows up, the other characters roll their eyes, shake their fist in the air, and comically rue the day they ever crossed paths with such an irritating personality. Comedy, of course, ensues.
Why this strategy has been employed for a dramatic show such as SVU is bizarre, puzzling, and perhaps desperate. There is no need for this. Stuckey even has his own catch phrase, like Urkel's classic "Did I do that?" I won't degrade this fine blog by repeating it here. But let me just say, it's superfluousness befits its source character.
Stuckey, a techie, has the intended effect on his co-workers. They find him annoying. So does the audience. So what's the point? Yet, true to form for a SITCOM, when someone yells at Stuckey, you kind of feel bad for him, and you, by Pavlovian instinct, think you are going to hear a heartfelt "Awwwww" on the soundtrack from the live studio audience.
Also, the SVU writers are employing yet another hackneyed sitcom trick that is beneath their normally excellent abilities. The concept of "addakid", which, when the kids on a sitcom grow up and aren't cute anymore, they simply add a kid. This has been done on almost every show with kids, but famously with the Cosby Show, Growing Pains, Family Matters (of course)...but why is SVU taking its lead from Family Matters? Why are they adding Stuckey? Why I ask you! What's going on here? Who has gotten to them?
The first time Stuckey reared his pasty head earlier this season, I didn't think much about it. Then he came back. Then he came back AGAIN. Are people out there really, truly clamoring for MORE Stuckey? I find this hard to believe. I know the public loves mediocrity, but why drag down a fine show like SVU with his chicanery, and, dare I say, tomfoolery? Making Stuckey the sole source of "comic relief", and downgrading Belzer and Ice-T is a giant mistake.
Just wait and see, one day it's not going to be "Benson and Stabler", it's going to be "Benson and Stuckey". We all lived through "Urkelmania", what with the cereal, talking doll, board game, etc. Why do it again? We all survived Martin Short as "Ed Grimley", why, oh why must we not learn the lessons of history?
The one saving grace here might be that the writers are throwing us for a loop. They are intentionally getting us to notice the inanity and unnecessary presence of Stuckey, getting us to dislike him, and then he gets killed off or severely injured, and then we all feel silly. If this happens, I will wipe the slate clean and applaud the writers on a job well done. They manipulated us properly, and I have no problem at all with that. But is it really worth the price? Is it really worth all the Stuckey? Only time will tell. But, barring that from happening, Stuckey has proved to be a head-scratching addition to the SVU cast.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
I support Carrie Prejean
We all know the story in the news right now that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said she supports marriage between a man and a woman. The problem is the fact that it is a news story at all.
You mean she actually supports a MAN and a WOMAN getting....(gasp)...MARRIED?!!!???!! How shocking! How horrifying! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!
I suppose 2009 marked the year that going along with a tradition that has existed for thousands of years, and actually predates beauty pageants, as far as we know, makes you worthy of vicious scorn and ridicule. A tradition that exists because a man and a woman are the tools needed technically to make a family, which, in its ideal form, is a societal pillar where norms are established. But Noooooooo..... Now this view is considered "politically incorrect". Which just goes to show AGAIN how counterintuitive liberalism and political correctness actually is. Liberals look for any excuse at all to raise their mock bile and their faux-outrage. Now they have such a hair-trigger, just saying you support men and women getting married unleashes the hissyfits.
Never mind that our liberal messiah, Obama has the same exact view.(Although why do I get the idea he would support gay marriage wholeheartedly if research hadn't shown the majority of people in the U.S. support traditional marriage, including the majority of Californians, who Carrie is supposed to represent...but then again I think the Koran says gays should be beheaded or something, so maybe he IS following his beliefs) He didn't get hard questions like this when he ran for Prez. Beauty pageant contestants get more hardball questions than our own president. But that's another matter for another day. No one excoriated our Overlord like they did to Carrie Prejean. What is it about attractive, traditional women that liberals see as such a threat? First they opened fire (despite the fact that they want to ban guns) on Sarah Palin, now this. My theory is they don't actually KNOW any conservative women, so when they see one it's like they don't know how to react. It's like a form of kneejerk xenophobia. "What? A...CONSERVATIVE...WOMAN??? Can't be! Aren't they all like US?" The fact that liberals assume all women think alike, and that they are all the same, and that they all are either A. liberal like them or B. Worthy of scorn, shows their...wait for it...SEXISM! That's right, being called a racist, sexist or homophobe isn't the exclusive province of the left! So where are the women's groups? Where are the feminists? Oh that's right...according to them, if you're not a LIBERAL woman, you're not worthy of their support. They should rename their groups LIBERAL women groups, because that's what they are.
Imagine supporting something so radical, so extreme, so hate-filled as...marriage between a man and a woman. I mean it's not like she was hanging around with terrorists, getting crooked land deals and sitting in the church of a true anti-white, anti-American, Antisemitic hatemonger for 20 years...right? What has happened to our society?
You mean she actually supports a MAN and a WOMAN getting....(gasp)...MARRIED?!!!???!! How shocking! How horrifying! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!
I suppose 2009 marked the year that going along with a tradition that has existed for thousands of years, and actually predates beauty pageants, as far as we know, makes you worthy of vicious scorn and ridicule. A tradition that exists because a man and a woman are the tools needed technically to make a family, which, in its ideal form, is a societal pillar where norms are established. But Noooooooo..... Now this view is considered "politically incorrect". Which just goes to show AGAIN how counterintuitive liberalism and political correctness actually is. Liberals look for any excuse at all to raise their mock bile and their faux-outrage. Now they have such a hair-trigger, just saying you support men and women getting married unleashes the hissyfits.
Never mind that our liberal messiah, Obama has the same exact view.(Although why do I get the idea he would support gay marriage wholeheartedly if research hadn't shown the majority of people in the U.S. support traditional marriage, including the majority of Californians, who Carrie is supposed to represent...but then again I think the Koran says gays should be beheaded or something, so maybe he IS following his beliefs) He didn't get hard questions like this when he ran for Prez. Beauty pageant contestants get more hardball questions than our own president. But that's another matter for another day. No one excoriated our Overlord like they did to Carrie Prejean. What is it about attractive, traditional women that liberals see as such a threat? First they opened fire (despite the fact that they want to ban guns) on Sarah Palin, now this. My theory is they don't actually KNOW any conservative women, so when they see one it's like they don't know how to react. It's like a form of kneejerk xenophobia. "What? A...CONSERVATIVE...WOMAN??? Can't be! Aren't they all like US?" The fact that liberals assume all women think alike, and that they are all the same, and that they all are either A. liberal like them or B. Worthy of scorn, shows their...wait for it...SEXISM! That's right, being called a racist, sexist or homophobe isn't the exclusive province of the left! So where are the women's groups? Where are the feminists? Oh that's right...according to them, if you're not a LIBERAL woman, you're not worthy of their support. They should rename their groups LIBERAL women groups, because that's what they are.
Imagine supporting something so radical, so extreme, so hate-filled as...marriage between a man and a woman. I mean it's not like she was hanging around with terrorists, getting crooked land deals and sitting in the church of a true anti-white, anti-American, Antisemitic hatemonger for 20 years...right? What has happened to our society?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Analysis of 2 famous 80's songs
Today I thought I would talk about two famous songs of the 80's. Both of the following songs have been written and talked about a lot, but that's not going to stop me. Until they invent a time machine that can go back to the 80's, I will continue to extol the virtues of this amazing decade. The music, fashion, politics, toys, movies, inventions, TV shows, and any and all culture, pop or otherwise, that flowered then can never be repeated.
1. FRANKIE GOES TO HOLLYWOOD - relax
This song is truly amazing for many reasons. I'm not really sure where to start. The Trevor Horn production is HUGE - big, booming, bombastic, bodacious, and of course the awesome bass. Trevor Horn is a production genius (known primarily for The Buggles and Art of Noise among other projects, my personal favorite that I have heard/that I own is his production work on ABC's "the Lexicon of Love", which is a triumph on behalf of everyone involved) that realized bigger IS better - an arena is too hopelessly puny to contain this sound. It makes so-called "arena rock" sound like bar-band stuff. Horn must have realized in order to make an impact, you have to rise above the pack in a shameless fashion. You only live once, let's go full throttle, to the max and not look back. And clearly it worked, because the song is a legendary number one hit that we're still talking about today. With inferior or substandard production, this would not be the case.
Now, putting aside the marketing campaign and "Frankie Says" T-shirts, just think about the song itself. There are many great and mind-boggling things about this song: 1. That it was made at all. 2. That it was dreamed up in the fevered minds of Horn and Holly Johnson and the whole crew - it is said many did not even play their instruments on the record 3. That a song so raunchy (I suppose in a typically British "naughty" way) could be a huge hit at that time 4. That it could be so raunchy and be a hit with Americans and others not knowing what they were talking about 5. The open gayness of it all (Although Holly looks so cool in the second video for the song, it must have opened the minds of many people, and of course the 80's was a very gay-friendly time for pop music, what with Wham!, Culture Club, Dead or Alive, Frankie, etc.)6. That all these factors could come together, in a somewhat unlikely manner and create a timeless moment in pop culture history.
A-HA - take on me
This truly is a thrilling and exhilarating song - you actually feel like you're moving when you're listening to it, perhaps speeding along the Autobahn (yes, I know they are from Norway and not Germany, but still the raging EUROPEAN-NESS permeates the whole thing).
Brilliant melodies never die - and this is pop music genius if there ever was such a thing. 99% of so-called "indie" bands WISH they could pull off something so masterful. Add to it a sense of drama, and your cup runneth over with greatness!!! After some dramatic highs and lows in the song which are pulled off so skilfully you barely notice them on a conscious level, a stroke of genius occurs: the tempo slowdown during the chorus. What I mean by this is, the song is moving along at it's brisk and sprightly pace, until Morten sings the line "I'll...be...gone..." during which the drums switch to a breakdown-like tempo, just for that one line. This practically makes the song a legend right there, and is an obvious genius that underlines some of the more moving emotions attached to the song. Not to mention, on the perfect album closer "Here I Stand and Face the Rain", the same technique is employed, but in a slower, more somber context, thereby wonderfully bookending the album. I have no idea if this was intentional or not, but it works.
Much has been made over the fact that this is a "one-hit wonder", however the A-ha boys have had a long career in Europe and in other territories. Perhaps it speaks to them more than it speaks to us on that level, and who could forget the amazing video? While the same techniques were used for the video for "hunting high and low" for whatever reason MTV didn't deem it as worthy. The whole album has that sort of "overcast" feeling...despite the brightness of the song in question, the full album makes for great rainy-day listening.
Both songs and videos spoken of here today scream "80's!" and I say so what! That makes it all the better! I'll take then over now anyday! What makes today's "music" so much better? It's godawful! I wish I was a pencil drawing in a comic book...
1. FRANKIE GOES TO HOLLYWOOD - relax
This song is truly amazing for many reasons. I'm not really sure where to start. The Trevor Horn production is HUGE - big, booming, bombastic, bodacious, and of course the awesome bass. Trevor Horn is a production genius (known primarily for The Buggles and Art of Noise among other projects, my personal favorite that I have heard/that I own is his production work on ABC's "the Lexicon of Love", which is a triumph on behalf of everyone involved) that realized bigger IS better - an arena is too hopelessly puny to contain this sound. It makes so-called "arena rock" sound like bar-band stuff. Horn must have realized in order to make an impact, you have to rise above the pack in a shameless fashion. You only live once, let's go full throttle, to the max and not look back. And clearly it worked, because the song is a legendary number one hit that we're still talking about today. With inferior or substandard production, this would not be the case.
Now, putting aside the marketing campaign and "Frankie Says" T-shirts, just think about the song itself. There are many great and mind-boggling things about this song: 1. That it was made at all. 2. That it was dreamed up in the fevered minds of Horn and Holly Johnson and the whole crew - it is said many did not even play their instruments on the record 3. That a song so raunchy (I suppose in a typically British "naughty" way) could be a huge hit at that time 4. That it could be so raunchy and be a hit with Americans and others not knowing what they were talking about 5. The open gayness of it all (Although Holly looks so cool in the second video for the song, it must have opened the minds of many people, and of course the 80's was a very gay-friendly time for pop music, what with Wham!, Culture Club, Dead or Alive, Frankie, etc.)6. That all these factors could come together, in a somewhat unlikely manner and create a timeless moment in pop culture history.
A-HA - take on me
This truly is a thrilling and exhilarating song - you actually feel like you're moving when you're listening to it, perhaps speeding along the Autobahn (yes, I know they are from Norway and not Germany, but still the raging EUROPEAN-NESS permeates the whole thing).
Brilliant melodies never die - and this is pop music genius if there ever was such a thing. 99% of so-called "indie" bands WISH they could pull off something so masterful. Add to it a sense of drama, and your cup runneth over with greatness!!! After some dramatic highs and lows in the song which are pulled off so skilfully you barely notice them on a conscious level, a stroke of genius occurs: the tempo slowdown during the chorus. What I mean by this is, the song is moving along at it's brisk and sprightly pace, until Morten sings the line "I'll...be...gone..." during which the drums switch to a breakdown-like tempo, just for that one line. This practically makes the song a legend right there, and is an obvious genius that underlines some of the more moving emotions attached to the song. Not to mention, on the perfect album closer "Here I Stand and Face the Rain", the same technique is employed, but in a slower, more somber context, thereby wonderfully bookending the album. I have no idea if this was intentional or not, but it works.
Much has been made over the fact that this is a "one-hit wonder", however the A-ha boys have had a long career in Europe and in other territories. Perhaps it speaks to them more than it speaks to us on that level, and who could forget the amazing video? While the same techniques were used for the video for "hunting high and low" for whatever reason MTV didn't deem it as worthy. The whole album has that sort of "overcast" feeling...despite the brightness of the song in question, the full album makes for great rainy-day listening.
Both songs and videos spoken of here today scream "80's!" and I say so what! That makes it all the better! I'll take then over now anyday! What makes today's "music" so much better? It's godawful! I wish I was a pencil drawing in a comic book...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Punk Scene
What's interesting about the world of punk is that the very thing that makes it good is the thing that makes it bad. It's very Shakespearean in that way. I'm fascinated by the fact that it's greatest strength and it's worst weakness are the exact same thing. And that is, that anyone can do it.
The fact that anyone can do it, and there are no prerequisites whatsoever to starting a punk band, not least of which ever included possessing any musical ability, was good, in a way, because it leveled the playing field. Now all you needed were some friends willing to give it a try.
Unfortunately, this bred far too much mediocrity and just plain awful music. This is only natural, because, strictly speaking in odds, if something is turned loose on the general public, it will become mediocre and watered-down. That's just what happens. Think back to anything in the past to see an example.
Thankfully, the punk movement produced The Ramones. The Ramones have always been an extraordinary band, and a very special one at that. If the punk movement had not produced this flagship band, I think a lot of people would be scratching their heads, thinking, "what was it all about?"
However, I submit to you that the Ramones are the first and LAST true punk band. They are the only real punk band to ever have existed. Everything else is just a bunch of lies. Importantly, the Ramones were unpretentious in the extreme, almost to the point of parody, and had no image to live up to, at least at first, and no standards to live up to. They just looked at all the popular musical trends that came before them in the sixties and attempted in their own inimitable way to do what they did. And thank goodness for everyone, they were wildly successful.
All the post-Ramones bands that call themselves punk are not so. Utter, unmitigated crap like The Casualties, Aus-Rotten, Crass and all the "spikey-haired" crew may be something, but in my view it's not PUNK. It's a distortion of the original meaning. What the spikey-haired crew is -- and here's a cold, hard fact for them -- are hippies wearing different clothes. But they are hippies 2.0, because they've added (faux) anger to their noxious stew.
I know of what I speak, because I was involved in the punk world for many years. I came to realize it is NOT a good or kind world. It is a selfish, dumb, spoiled, talentless, repetitive, redundant, boring, abject, gutter-level group that self-oppresses. They choose to stay in the basement when they could live in the penthouse. This is contrary to all logic. But most importantly, they are a CLOSED-MINDED group. This is important because they pride themselves on being open minded. They never, ever stop beating that drum of "open minded". I see now that is because they are severely insecure of their own closed-mindedness.
Here's a quick example. If you were to show up to a punk show wearing a Kiss T-shirt, you would be openly mocked and ridiculed, and probably even confronted by total strangers. And this is just a T-shirt. That is not the open-mindedness I've heard them talk so much about. Just the contrary, they only want you listening to punk rock. If you dare listen to all the myriad other types of music in this world, you're not "true" , you're not "punk", you're not "core" or whatever the terminology of the minute is. You're just a worthless traitor in their eyes. They WANT you to stay in the "basement" I spoke of earlier. They WANT you stuck on an endless hit parade of songs about how life sucks, beer, and "police brutality" (a popular punk subject that the "songwriters" have absolutely zero experience with.)They don't want anyone to excel in life. Probably because none of THEM has excelled in life. That's not just ignorant and lazy, it's actually unhealthy. That's one form of the self-oppression I spoke of earlier. (many punk songs are about how they are VICTIMS of oppression). They prefer to stay in the dark when there's a lightswitch right there. How could I continue to be involved in such a group?
The bottom line is, you mustn't break the orthodoxy. What's fascinating about punk rockers (and liberals, which is really what punks are), is that they have a hatred for religion (and this is exemplified in countless songs on punk albums and in any punk literature, if that isn't an oxymoron). (Side note, Oxymoron is the name of a punk band)....So despite their avowed hatred for religion, what they don't realize, because they're blinded by their own hypocrisy, is that liberalism/punk IS a religion, with its own dogmas, orthodoxies and rules. So once again, there is a set of rules for them, and a set of rules for everyone else.
Once that hypocrisy dawned on me, and saw that the punk rockers were not kind, they were self-absorbed, suddenly those repetitive same chords endlessly repeated on the guitar seemed boring and empty. Their philosophies, such as they were, were all lies and hypocrisy. And these are the ones that had no interest in just drinking beer and fighting. I'm talking about the pseudo-intellectual contingent of the scene. But you can be pretty dumb and still be an intellectual in the punk scene. Talk about a big fish in a small pond. And I've been selling my punk records ever since. If you are after any, feel free to contact me!
The fact that anyone can do it, and there are no prerequisites whatsoever to starting a punk band, not least of which ever included possessing any musical ability, was good, in a way, because it leveled the playing field. Now all you needed were some friends willing to give it a try.
Unfortunately, this bred far too much mediocrity and just plain awful music. This is only natural, because, strictly speaking in odds, if something is turned loose on the general public, it will become mediocre and watered-down. That's just what happens. Think back to anything in the past to see an example.
Thankfully, the punk movement produced The Ramones. The Ramones have always been an extraordinary band, and a very special one at that. If the punk movement had not produced this flagship band, I think a lot of people would be scratching their heads, thinking, "what was it all about?"
However, I submit to you that the Ramones are the first and LAST true punk band. They are the only real punk band to ever have existed. Everything else is just a bunch of lies. Importantly, the Ramones were unpretentious in the extreme, almost to the point of parody, and had no image to live up to, at least at first, and no standards to live up to. They just looked at all the popular musical trends that came before them in the sixties and attempted in their own inimitable way to do what they did. And thank goodness for everyone, they were wildly successful.
All the post-Ramones bands that call themselves punk are not so. Utter, unmitigated crap like The Casualties, Aus-Rotten, Crass and all the "spikey-haired" crew may be something, but in my view it's not PUNK. It's a distortion of the original meaning. What the spikey-haired crew is -- and here's a cold, hard fact for them -- are hippies wearing different clothes. But they are hippies 2.0, because they've added (faux) anger to their noxious stew.
I know of what I speak, because I was involved in the punk world for many years. I came to realize it is NOT a good or kind world. It is a selfish, dumb, spoiled, talentless, repetitive, redundant, boring, abject, gutter-level group that self-oppresses. They choose to stay in the basement when they could live in the penthouse. This is contrary to all logic. But most importantly, they are a CLOSED-MINDED group. This is important because they pride themselves on being open minded. They never, ever stop beating that drum of "open minded". I see now that is because they are severely insecure of their own closed-mindedness.
Here's a quick example. If you were to show up to a punk show wearing a Kiss T-shirt, you would be openly mocked and ridiculed, and probably even confronted by total strangers. And this is just a T-shirt. That is not the open-mindedness I've heard them talk so much about. Just the contrary, they only want you listening to punk rock. If you dare listen to all the myriad other types of music in this world, you're not "true" , you're not "punk", you're not "core" or whatever the terminology of the minute is. You're just a worthless traitor in their eyes. They WANT you to stay in the "basement" I spoke of earlier. They WANT you stuck on an endless hit parade of songs about how life sucks, beer, and "police brutality" (a popular punk subject that the "songwriters" have absolutely zero experience with.)They don't want anyone to excel in life. Probably because none of THEM has excelled in life. That's not just ignorant and lazy, it's actually unhealthy. That's one form of the self-oppression I spoke of earlier. (many punk songs are about how they are VICTIMS of oppression). They prefer to stay in the dark when there's a lightswitch right there. How could I continue to be involved in such a group?
The bottom line is, you mustn't break the orthodoxy. What's fascinating about punk rockers (and liberals, which is really what punks are), is that they have a hatred for religion (and this is exemplified in countless songs on punk albums and in any punk literature, if that isn't an oxymoron). (Side note, Oxymoron is the name of a punk band)....So despite their avowed hatred for religion, what they don't realize, because they're blinded by their own hypocrisy, is that liberalism/punk IS a religion, with its own dogmas, orthodoxies and rules. So once again, there is a set of rules for them, and a set of rules for everyone else.
Once that hypocrisy dawned on me, and saw that the punk rockers were not kind, they were self-absorbed, suddenly those repetitive same chords endlessly repeated on the guitar seemed boring and empty. Their philosophies, such as they were, were all lies and hypocrisy. And these are the ones that had no interest in just drinking beer and fighting. I'm talking about the pseudo-intellectual contingent of the scene. But you can be pretty dumb and still be an intellectual in the punk scene. Talk about a big fish in a small pond. And I've been selling my punk records ever since. If you are after any, feel free to contact me!
Friday, March 13, 2009
DVD Review I Wrote For the Hartford Examiner
Here is an review I just wrote for the Hartford Examiner. I am "simulcasting" it if you will, here on my blog. I may start doing that periodically. Here it is:
Exodus is a band from the Bay Area of California. They formed in the early eighties, and by the time of the mid-eighties, a new subgenre of heavy metal was born: it was called thrash. A scene sprang up in the Bay Area (among other places), and with bands such as Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Vio-lence, Death Angel, and yes, even Metallica, who claims they were "kicked out of L.A." and found their spiritual home in San Francisco.
In 1985, Exodus released their debut album on Torrid records, entitled "Bonded by Blood". Taking all the pre-existing elements of the heavy metal genre, and amping them up to the next level, the album featured fast, pounding drums, lightning fast guitar riffs, and the maniacal screams of the legendary (and now sadly deceased) Paul Baloff. This was an exciting time for the metal genre as fans and critics alike flocked to this new sound.
With the current resurgence of interest in the thrash metal of days past, enter the new DVD released by Zaentz records, "Exodus: Double Live Dynamo". While the title and font recall Ted Nugent, this is somewhat puzzling because the Motor City Madman is nowhere to be found. The DVD is set up as two concerts: the first in 1985 at the Dynamo club, and the second from 1997 at the Dynamo open air festival, both in Eindhoven, Holland. This is identical in structure to fellow metallers Toxik's DVD "Dynamo open air 1988" (and who doesn't have that one? Just kidding).
The first concert, the club date, is excellent. While not TOO dissimilar to what, in years past, would have passed as a bootleg, the mid-eighties camcorder footage, rather than decrease enjoyment, adds that dewy layer of nostalgia and charm. The crowd is going crazy (European fans tend to appreciate American metal bands visiting their countries), and the band performs a tight, energetic and highly entertaining set. Also of interest are the performance of two songs not released on any album, "Hell's Breath" and "Deathrow", making, by default, this DVD an essential purchase for completists due to that alone. Add to that some pre-show soundcheck footage and a great time is had by all.
Sadly, the second concert doesn't quite live up to the first. From 1997, a low year for metal generally speaking, I applaud Exodus for soldiering on and keeping the flame alive. But on that big stage there is no immediate connection to the audience like in the club gig. Plus its hard to tell if the fans are truly appreciating them or on an "ironic" level only. Additionally, the sound is a bit weird. We cannot hear Rick Hunolt's guitar at all. We see he is playing but we hear no sound. Maybe the live audience did, but the home audience cannot. Add to that his receding hairline and bad, super-baggy 90's pants, and a pretty picture is not painted. While we can hear Gary Holt's guitar loud and clear, unfortunately, the signature Exodus "crunch" is SO low and distorted it just sounds squelchy and is hard to listen to at times. Plus his short, California-dude hair is more suited to pop-punk than pure Metal. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt because it is said they had just returned to the stage with this lineup after just practicing with it. And it's not terrible, but in comparison with the previous concert, it's just somewhat sad to see how times have changed.
In conclusion, first concert = awesome. second concert = pass. But with the new interest in all things 80's and all things metal, I'm sure we can expect to see more DVD's like this in the future. Besides the fact that my wallet will take a beating, I say, go forth and thrash!
As you can see, I wrote the above article for those who know little to nothing about the band Exodus or Metal in general, especially thrash. I kept it pretty simple. I'm not sure the audience of the Examiner so I just assumed their knowledge base about Bay Area Thrash was minimal. This is at the risk of insulting their intelligence and seeming like a knowitall. We shall see?
Exodus is a band from the Bay Area of California. They formed in the early eighties, and by the time of the mid-eighties, a new subgenre of heavy metal was born: it was called thrash. A scene sprang up in the Bay Area (among other places), and with bands such as Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Vio-lence, Death Angel, and yes, even Metallica, who claims they were "kicked out of L.A." and found their spiritual home in San Francisco.
In 1985, Exodus released their debut album on Torrid records, entitled "Bonded by Blood". Taking all the pre-existing elements of the heavy metal genre, and amping them up to the next level, the album featured fast, pounding drums, lightning fast guitar riffs, and the maniacal screams of the legendary (and now sadly deceased) Paul Baloff. This was an exciting time for the metal genre as fans and critics alike flocked to this new sound.
With the current resurgence of interest in the thrash metal of days past, enter the new DVD released by Zaentz records, "Exodus: Double Live Dynamo". While the title and font recall Ted Nugent, this is somewhat puzzling because the Motor City Madman is nowhere to be found. The DVD is set up as two concerts: the first in 1985 at the Dynamo club, and the second from 1997 at the Dynamo open air festival, both in Eindhoven, Holland. This is identical in structure to fellow metallers Toxik's DVD "Dynamo open air 1988" (and who doesn't have that one? Just kidding).
The first concert, the club date, is excellent. While not TOO dissimilar to what, in years past, would have passed as a bootleg, the mid-eighties camcorder footage, rather than decrease enjoyment, adds that dewy layer of nostalgia and charm. The crowd is going crazy (European fans tend to appreciate American metal bands visiting their countries), and the band performs a tight, energetic and highly entertaining set. Also of interest are the performance of two songs not released on any album, "Hell's Breath" and "Deathrow", making, by default, this DVD an essential purchase for completists due to that alone. Add to that some pre-show soundcheck footage and a great time is had by all.
Sadly, the second concert doesn't quite live up to the first. From 1997, a low year for metal generally speaking, I applaud Exodus for soldiering on and keeping the flame alive. But on that big stage there is no immediate connection to the audience like in the club gig. Plus its hard to tell if the fans are truly appreciating them or on an "ironic" level only. Additionally, the sound is a bit weird. We cannot hear Rick Hunolt's guitar at all. We see he is playing but we hear no sound. Maybe the live audience did, but the home audience cannot. Add to that his receding hairline and bad, super-baggy 90's pants, and a pretty picture is not painted. While we can hear Gary Holt's guitar loud and clear, unfortunately, the signature Exodus "crunch" is SO low and distorted it just sounds squelchy and is hard to listen to at times. Plus his short, California-dude hair is more suited to pop-punk than pure Metal. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt because it is said they had just returned to the stage with this lineup after just practicing with it. And it's not terrible, but in comparison with the previous concert, it's just somewhat sad to see how times have changed.
In conclusion, first concert = awesome. second concert = pass. But with the new interest in all things 80's and all things metal, I'm sure we can expect to see more DVD's like this in the future. Besides the fact that my wallet will take a beating, I say, go forth and thrash!
As you can see, I wrote the above article for those who know little to nothing about the band Exodus or Metal in general, especially thrash. I kept it pretty simple. I'm not sure the audience of the Examiner so I just assumed their knowledge base about Bay Area Thrash was minimal. This is at the risk of insulting their intelligence and seeming like a knowitall. We shall see?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Partial List of Obama's Lies and Hypocrisy
-- It all started during the campaign when he vowed not to take public financing. He then went back on that promise.
-- He vowed in all earnestness that he would reject all earmarks. There are about 9000 earmarks in the current trillion-dollar projects going on right now.
-- He said there would be "transparency" in his administration. Anyone who dares to ask questions about the validity of some of the things he is doing, especially in reference to his "stimulus" bills, is shouted down in favor of the utter speed in which this must be passed NOW.
-- He said he would cut the deficit. He's doubled the deficit.
-- He promised "bipartisanship" - Most republicans are against his socialistic policies but he doesn't seem to care. He'd rather focus on demonizing Rush Limbaugh, who he must have just heard of even though he's been on the radio for 20+ years. How bipartisan.
-- He admonished America to "wear a sweater" when it gets cold to save on energy costs. According to reports, he cranks the heat in the oval office. When asked about it, a spokesman said "He's from Hawaii". Never mind he spent most of his adult life in New York and Chicago.
-- He claims to be "for the people". Meanwhile he's eating $100 a pound imported steak from Japan and Iranian caviar, and inviting Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire to play at the White House for his Wednesday parties. He also lives in a million-dollar house gotten in a crooked land deal with Tony Rezko.
Way to stay in touch with the "little people". The people he claims to be in favor of. I guess we see now where he really feels comfortable.
-- He vowed lobbyists "won't find a job in my white house"...well...at least some people in America have steady jobs now.
-- As far as gun control goes, he said he would "uphold the second amendment", but even in his first 50 days as president, with all the other problems at hand, he has made various gun bans a priority.
-- He chided John McCain when McCain said the economy might not be as bad as Obama is making it seem. Once the polling numbers came in, he then changed his tune to "the economy is not as bad as it seems".
-- He said now is "an end to childish things" - yet he and his snarky Clintonites are calling Republicans a bunch of "Limbaugh-lovers" like kids at differing lunchtables in elementary school.
-- He never stops talking about the value of public education and how teachers and schools need (of course) more money! Yet he sends his daughters to a private school.
-- His intended aim is to raise taxes to create some kind of utopia, but everyone in his cabinet is a tax cheat. But they are the almighty politicians, our great and wise leaders. They don't have to pay taxes. Only we do. But I guess now it seems we're picking up their slack. There's nothing so sublime as getting a lecture on how important it is to pay taxes by people who don't pay theirs. My question is, if these people weren't nominated to be in Obama's cabinet, how would we know about their tax problems? Perhaps every American, one after the other, could be "vetted" for his cabinet, thereby getting all the unpaid taxes, and that would stimulate the economy. But then again most Americans actually pay their taxes, something the Obama team finds confusing.
-- His big catchphrase was "hope and change". His version of this phrase apparently means hiring all the old Clintonite hacks. But more importantly, with the way the economy is right now, people are increasingly hopeless and all they're left with is a few cents in change.
His condescending, pedantic and unbelievably arrogant tone apparently doesn't bother most people. They just accept it because he is our messiah. His word is the law. Literally! He knows how to spend our money better than we do. Just HOW he knows this is not clear. Unmindful of the political cesspools in which he was politically reared, mainly due to a sympathetic media (whose "fair and balanced" approach venerated our golden god and savaged Sarah Palin at every possible chance), He was elected into office and now leads our country and our world.
Forget the fact that there literally isn't enough money in the world to support his pie-in-the-sky liberal dream projects. HE doesn't suffer through recessions. He only suffers when he can't get his liberal policies passed. The so-called "evil rich people"(i.e. Hollywood celebrities and others that helped get him elected) that create jobs and make 250,000 or more will now, out of fear of paying even MORE taxes under Obama, will try to spend 249,000 or less, thereby reducing productivity and jobs. This stunts the economy. But our almighty messiah is always right and he knows what will and what won't stimulate our economy. Spending money was the problem, so, frighteningly true to his diehard liberal beliefs, obviously throwing more money at it will solve the problem.
I know I'm leaving out a lot of contradictions, hypocrisies and outright lies, so feel free to write in if you think of any others. Also, even though liberals claim to be for free speech, they only like it when it supports their cause. They support the so-called "fairness" doctrine because they cannot compete in the marketplace of talk radio, so, naturally, they whine to their mommy, the government, "That's not fair!!!" (hence the name of their beloved doctrine). So even thought the people and the market has decided, they reject that view and think there should be government-mandated "fairness". So do write in if you have any other suggestions for the above list, before this blog magically disappears.
-- He vowed in all earnestness that he would reject all earmarks. There are about 9000 earmarks in the current trillion-dollar projects going on right now.
-- He said there would be "transparency" in his administration. Anyone who dares to ask questions about the validity of some of the things he is doing, especially in reference to his "stimulus" bills, is shouted down in favor of the utter speed in which this must be passed NOW.
-- He said he would cut the deficit. He's doubled the deficit.
-- He promised "bipartisanship" - Most republicans are against his socialistic policies but he doesn't seem to care. He'd rather focus on demonizing Rush Limbaugh, who he must have just heard of even though he's been on the radio for 20+ years. How bipartisan.
-- He admonished America to "wear a sweater" when it gets cold to save on energy costs. According to reports, he cranks the heat in the oval office. When asked about it, a spokesman said "He's from Hawaii". Never mind he spent most of his adult life in New York and Chicago.
-- He claims to be "for the people". Meanwhile he's eating $100 a pound imported steak from Japan and Iranian caviar, and inviting Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire to play at the White House for his Wednesday parties. He also lives in a million-dollar house gotten in a crooked land deal with Tony Rezko.
Way to stay in touch with the "little people". The people he claims to be in favor of. I guess we see now where he really feels comfortable.
-- He vowed lobbyists "won't find a job in my white house"...well...at least some people in America have steady jobs now.
-- As far as gun control goes, he said he would "uphold the second amendment", but even in his first 50 days as president, with all the other problems at hand, he has made various gun bans a priority.
-- He chided John McCain when McCain said the economy might not be as bad as Obama is making it seem. Once the polling numbers came in, he then changed his tune to "the economy is not as bad as it seems".
-- He said now is "an end to childish things" - yet he and his snarky Clintonites are calling Republicans a bunch of "Limbaugh-lovers" like kids at differing lunchtables in elementary school.
-- He never stops talking about the value of public education and how teachers and schools need (of course) more money! Yet he sends his daughters to a private school.
-- His intended aim is to raise taxes to create some kind of utopia, but everyone in his cabinet is a tax cheat. But they are the almighty politicians, our great and wise leaders. They don't have to pay taxes. Only we do. But I guess now it seems we're picking up their slack. There's nothing so sublime as getting a lecture on how important it is to pay taxes by people who don't pay theirs. My question is, if these people weren't nominated to be in Obama's cabinet, how would we know about their tax problems? Perhaps every American, one after the other, could be "vetted" for his cabinet, thereby getting all the unpaid taxes, and that would stimulate the economy. But then again most Americans actually pay their taxes, something the Obama team finds confusing.
-- His big catchphrase was "hope and change". His version of this phrase apparently means hiring all the old Clintonite hacks. But more importantly, with the way the economy is right now, people are increasingly hopeless and all they're left with is a few cents in change.
His condescending, pedantic and unbelievably arrogant tone apparently doesn't bother most people. They just accept it because he is our messiah. His word is the law. Literally! He knows how to spend our money better than we do. Just HOW he knows this is not clear. Unmindful of the political cesspools in which he was politically reared, mainly due to a sympathetic media (whose "fair and balanced" approach venerated our golden god and savaged Sarah Palin at every possible chance), He was elected into office and now leads our country and our world.
Forget the fact that there literally isn't enough money in the world to support his pie-in-the-sky liberal dream projects. HE doesn't suffer through recessions. He only suffers when he can't get his liberal policies passed. The so-called "evil rich people"(i.e. Hollywood celebrities and others that helped get him elected) that create jobs and make 250,000 or more will now, out of fear of paying even MORE taxes under Obama, will try to spend 249,000 or less, thereby reducing productivity and jobs. This stunts the economy. But our almighty messiah is always right and he knows what will and what won't stimulate our economy. Spending money was the problem, so, frighteningly true to his diehard liberal beliefs, obviously throwing more money at it will solve the problem.
I know I'm leaving out a lot of contradictions, hypocrisies and outright lies, so feel free to write in if you think of any others. Also, even though liberals claim to be for free speech, they only like it when it supports their cause. They support the so-called "fairness" doctrine because they cannot compete in the marketplace of talk radio, so, naturally, they whine to their mommy, the government, "That's not fair!!!" (hence the name of their beloved doctrine). So even thought the people and the market has decided, they reject that view and think there should be government-mandated "fairness". So do write in if you have any other suggestions for the above list, before this blog magically disappears.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
List of reasons why I am not a drug user
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)