Halloween Comes Early This Year
WARNING: Some of the content in this post may be offensive to some people. Viewer discretion is advised!
If you know me or you've been reading my blog for any length of time then you know that I love horror movies, and Halloween is my favorite holiday. I've been trying to figure out a non-cheesy way of introducing a certain website I found some time ago, but the time just never seemed right. Well, after today I've come up with the perfect way to introduce it.
I was surfing the Cake Wrecks website, and found some of the more...gruesome examples of humanity's lack of decorum and it seemed the perfect opportunity to show you this:
If you know me or you've been reading my blog for any length of time then you know that I love horror movies, and Halloween is my favorite holiday. I've been trying to figure out a non-cheesy way of introducing a certain website I found some time ago, but the time just never seemed right. Well, after today I've come up with the perfect way to introduce it.
I was surfing the Cake Wrecks website, and found some of the more...gruesome examples of humanity's lack of decorum and it seemed the perfect opportunity to show you this:
Yes, that's right, it's the Thorax Cake. Created by a couple of sisters, you can find the whole workup here. For some reason, this doesn't gross me out. I mean, at first it did, but over the years I've become less grossed out by it to the point that I'd love to take a bite (the whole thing is edible), or, better yet, I'd love to make my own. So you might be wondering what it was over at Cake Wrecks that was so bad that it's got me annoyed enough to blog about it...Well, this! And that's part of it below.
BELOW: Baby Shower cake...level-of-taste issue, much?!
I should point out that it's not just the baby that is cake, but that "placenta" back there, too. This is one of those, "what were you thinking?!" situations. Seriously, what were they thinking? Yes, it's a phenomenal piece of work, but it's a cake! That implies that it's supposed to be eaten. You gonna eat that?
Yes, I love horror movies (well made horror movies, not stupid slasher flicks whose sole purpose for existence is to see how much blood and guts they can throw around... really, a slasher flick is the porn flick of the horror movie genre -- like a porno it has zero plot and loads of unnecessary screaming and buckets of bodily fluids. Slasher movies (and Cannibal Corpse) are no more viable "entertainment" than porn movies, and they never will be -- no, porn is not viable entertainment. 'S'truth, get over it and move on), but even in horror movies there's a certain level of decorum that should be adhered to, and these Baby Shower cakes just don't hold to that.
But it's not just the creator of said tasteless (that's not a pun) cakes that is at fault here, it's the people who wanted the cake in the first place! If you've ever watched Ace of Cakes then you know that there are some people with strange ideas about what constitutes an appropriate cake for any occasion. The thing is, I have yet to see any cakes on there that are as inappropriate as the one shown above. Seriously, this one takes first prize (okay, the "fetus cake" is a tie).
Maybe you think I'm being oversensitive about this, that it's just all in good fun. Good fun? I roll my eyes at you. I don't think it's oversensitive to ask that people actually think before they do things. But if you're not actually going to eat the baby, then I don't have a problem with it. Of course, if you're not going to eat the baby, then why make it out of cake?
Morality
A question was raised on one of my other posts, if you didn't read it then you can find it here. That question was whether morality can exist without religion. My answer was yes, it can. But I'd like to explain that answer for those who might not understand how that could work.
A moral, as defined by the 1940 edition of Webster's Universities Dictionary Unabridged, is: 1. Relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men, as social beings, in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong; ethical.
Morality then, is defined as: 1. The doctrine of the moral duties of life or of men in their social character; morals; ethics. 2. The practice of moral duties; course of life as regards moral duties; observance of right and wrong. 3. The quality or character of an action, or principle, as estimated by a standard of right and wrong; the conformity of an action, or principle, to the true moral standard or law.
I chose this venerable tome (it's ginormous!) for the express purpose of showing that, even in the early 20th Century, "moral" and "morality," as defined by learned men, had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Morality is, as shown above, the "standard of right and wrong" and "the conformity of an action, or principle, to the true moral standard or law." Ergo, morality is a set of rules designed to dictate the actions of men as regarding what is considered right and wrong for each individual society.
Since the dawn of time, societies have made rules regarding the conduct of it's members in order to protect them. Perhaps it's mere coincidence that "religion," in one form or another, has also existed since the dawn of time.
But not all society's laws are the same and that's because different people view actions differently. In the Mayan civilization, human sacrifice was a common-place occurrence, because the Maya didn't view sacrifice as immoral; far from it. But in many societies today, human sacrifice would be regarded as highly immoral. Therefore, "morality," or what is considered right and wrong, changes depending on the society you are in.
Whether you agree with the morals of your society is irrelevant, as a member of any society you are expected, nay, required, to follow the morals of that society. It is up to you, as to whether you actually do that or not. But you cannot blame "religion" for the rules of your society unless your society is based on a religion (for example the Islamic countries whose laws are specifically based on religious laws).
The question, then, is not: can morality exist without religion (because it obviously can). But rather: do your societies laws protect it's members? If you believe they do, then it shouldn't matter where those laws originated. What matters is that they exist and they do what they are meant to do.
A moral, as defined by the 1940 edition of Webster's Universities Dictionary Unabridged, is: 1. Relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men, as social beings, in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong; ethical.
Morality then, is defined as: 1. The doctrine of the moral duties of life or of men in their social character; morals; ethics. 2. The practice of moral duties; course of life as regards moral duties; observance of right and wrong. 3. The quality or character of an action, or principle, as estimated by a standard of right and wrong; the conformity of an action, or principle, to the true moral standard or law.
I chose this venerable tome (it's ginormous!) for the express purpose of showing that, even in the early 20th Century, "moral" and "morality," as defined by learned men, had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Morality is, as shown above, the "standard of right and wrong" and "the conformity of an action, or principle, to the true moral standard or law." Ergo, morality is a set of rules designed to dictate the actions of men as regarding what is considered right and wrong for each individual society.
Since the dawn of time, societies have made rules regarding the conduct of it's members in order to protect them. Perhaps it's mere coincidence that "religion," in one form or another, has also existed since the dawn of time.
But not all society's laws are the same and that's because different people view actions differently. In the Mayan civilization, human sacrifice was a common-place occurrence, because the Maya didn't view sacrifice as immoral; far from it. But in many societies today, human sacrifice would be regarded as highly immoral. Therefore, "morality," or what is considered right and wrong, changes depending on the society you are in.
Whether you agree with the morals of your society is irrelevant, as a member of any society you are expected, nay, required, to follow the morals of that society. It is up to you, as to whether you actually do that or not. But you cannot blame "religion" for the rules of your society unless your society is based on a religion (for example the Islamic countries whose laws are specifically based on religious laws).
The question, then, is not: can morality exist without religion (because it obviously can). But rather: do your societies laws protect it's members? If you believe they do, then it shouldn't matter where those laws originated. What matters is that they exist and they do what they are meant to do.
Three Strikes
I told a couple of people that I was going to have a good vent about Spotify (and, by default, bottom-feeding so-called Metal "fans," and Metalsucks)...that was on Friday, it's now Sunday and I'm finally getting to it. The reason it has taken me so long is because I wasn't in the mood to get all cranky again. I'm still not in the mood to get into this, but I feel that it does need to be said.
Prosthetic Records is now the third label to kick Spotify to the curb. Hallelujah, Lord let the exodus continue! Following in the footsteps of Century Media and Metal Blade, Prosthetic, like the aforementioned, are vacating because they don't care for Spotify's business model.
I first came upon this tasty bit of news on (wait for it) Metalsucks. Yeah, and I made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Once again, I can't believe the lack of understanding in this community. But, as always, it comes down to entitlement. These people still can't seem to get it that they are not, in any way, entitled to the music! It's a privilege, not a right! Some of the commenters were actually bragging about illegally downloading music! (I should mention, as Jens Ryland pointed out, many of these posts may have been trolls. I have to admit, the thought that some of these commenters could actually be Metalsucks staff posing as trolls posing as genuine "fans" did cross my mind...several times...would you put it past them??)
While researching this story I came across this gem which shows the payout from various sources. Because it is so large I've cut it up into two pieces, but you can view it in full here. To view it on my page simply click each image.
Prosthetic Records is now the third label to kick Spotify to the curb. Hallelujah, Lord let the exodus continue! Following in the footsteps of Century Media and Metal Blade, Prosthetic, like the aforementioned, are vacating because they don't care for Spotify's business model.
I first came upon this tasty bit of news on (wait for it) Metalsucks. Yeah, and I made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Once again, I can't believe the lack of understanding in this community. But, as always, it comes down to entitlement. These people still can't seem to get it that they are not, in any way, entitled to the music! It's a privilege, not a right! Some of the commenters were actually bragging about illegally downloading music! (I should mention, as Jens Ryland pointed out, many of these posts may have been trolls. I have to admit, the thought that some of these commenters could actually be Metalsucks staff posing as trolls posing as genuine "fans" did cross my mind...several times...would you put it past them??)
While researching this story I came across this gem which shows the payout from various sources. Because it is so large I've cut it up into two pieces, but you can view it in full here. To view it on my page simply click each image.
What this little table shows is that artists aren't making any money from streaming audio and if they're not making any money then they're not going to be making any music, either. I don't know about y'all, but I happen to appreciate what it is my favorite bands do. And because I appreciate it, I would like them to continue to do it. But in order to continue to do what it is they do that I love so much, they need to have time and money.
There are a lot of folks over at Metalsucks and Blabbermouth who seem to be convinced that streaming audio is the future of music. Well, if this is the future then it's going to be a pretty quiet one, because smaller bands aren't going to be able to support themselves on what Spotify and their ilk are trying to pay them.
Thing is, I seem to remember a time when cassette tapes were thought to be "the future." They were so much better than vinyl records; they were going to revolutionize the industry! Uh, yeah. It's easier to get vinyl now than a cassette tape, as vinyl is making a very definite comeback with more and more musicians choosing to add vinyl to their format offerings. It's impossible to predict what "the future" is because there will always be some new innovation that makes the past seem ludicrous. But as we've seen numerous times with fashion, the past always makes a comeback.
The folks who are claiming this is the future are operating in a vacuum...and nature abhors a vacuum. I've been trying to come up with the silver bullet that will finally explain it to these people but I realize that I'm talking to a brick wall...Regardless, I'm going to give it a go.
Intellectual property is no different than physical labor; you, the bottom-dwelling Metal "fan" who works in the construction trade, selling your labor (for minimum wage) and illegally downloading music, are no different than the intellectually superior Metal musician who is selling their intellectual property to you, for less than minimum wage and getting ripped off anyway. Now you tell me, is your physical labor any more important than their mental labor? Let me help you here, the answer is NO! You want to talk about entitlement? Everyone is entitled to an honest wage and when you take something that you are not entitled to, you are robbing the people who created it of an honest wage. Would you like it if your boss made you work for free? I thought not. Then why would you make them do it?
Here's something else to think about. It seems as though you aren't willing to spend money on CD's but you are willing to spend money on concert tickets...so, if they don't have the money to go on tour because y'all are stealing their music, then what? That just makes no sense...you'll pay the same amount (or very often much more) on a concert ticket but you give birth to a farm when asked to buy a CD?! And then you spend as much as, if not more than, the cost of a CD at the show to by T-shirts and posters and whatnot, and I just love those of you who say that bands don't make any money on CD's but they make all their money on merch...well, they won't be making any money that way either if they can't tour, now will they?
People talk a lot about transparency...maybe we should have a revelation on just how much it costs a band to put out their music and go on tour because apparently y'all think it's dirt cheap!. Maybe then you'll get it?
I know it will never happen, but just once I'd like for a bunch of bands to go on strike. Like at Wacken, say...all the bands on the bill just stage a sit-in protesting the lack of support they are getting from the likes of the Metalsucks and Blabbermouth Gimme Gimme Generation. I would actually pay money to see that.
There are a lot of folks over at Metalsucks and Blabbermouth who seem to be convinced that streaming audio is the future of music. Well, if this is the future then it's going to be a pretty quiet one, because smaller bands aren't going to be able to support themselves on what Spotify and their ilk are trying to pay them.
Thing is, I seem to remember a time when cassette tapes were thought to be "the future." They were so much better than vinyl records; they were going to revolutionize the industry! Uh, yeah. It's easier to get vinyl now than a cassette tape, as vinyl is making a very definite comeback with more and more musicians choosing to add vinyl to their format offerings. It's impossible to predict what "the future" is because there will always be some new innovation that makes the past seem ludicrous. But as we've seen numerous times with fashion, the past always makes a comeback.
The folks who are claiming this is the future are operating in a vacuum...and nature abhors a vacuum. I've been trying to come up with the silver bullet that will finally explain it to these people but I realize that I'm talking to a brick wall...Regardless, I'm going to give it a go.
Intellectual property is no different than physical labor; you, the bottom-dwelling Metal "fan" who works in the construction trade, selling your labor (for minimum wage) and illegally downloading music, are no different than the intellectually superior Metal musician who is selling their intellectual property to you, for less than minimum wage and getting ripped off anyway. Now you tell me, is your physical labor any more important than their mental labor? Let me help you here, the answer is NO! You want to talk about entitlement? Everyone is entitled to an honest wage and when you take something that you are not entitled to, you are robbing the people who created it of an honest wage. Would you like it if your boss made you work for free? I thought not. Then why would you make them do it?
Here's something else to think about. It seems as though you aren't willing to spend money on CD's but you are willing to spend money on concert tickets...so, if they don't have the money to go on tour because y'all are stealing their music, then what? That just makes no sense...you'll pay the same amount (or very often much more) on a concert ticket but you give birth to a farm when asked to buy a CD?! And then you spend as much as, if not more than, the cost of a CD at the show to by T-shirts and posters and whatnot, and I just love those of you who say that bands don't make any money on CD's but they make all their money on merch...well, they won't be making any money that way either if they can't tour, now will they?
People talk a lot about transparency...maybe we should have a revelation on just how much it costs a band to put out their music and go on tour because apparently y'all think it's dirt cheap!. Maybe then you'll get it?
I know it will never happen, but just once I'd like for a bunch of bands to go on strike. Like at Wacken, say...all the bands on the bill just stage a sit-in protesting the lack of support they are getting from the likes of the Metalsucks and Blabbermouth Gimme Gimme Generation. I would actually pay money to see that.
The Alpha Wolf
Although it came out months ago, I only just got the Death Wolf self-titled album (I could only find it as an import so it took me a minute to locate a source that wouldn't result in the forfeiture of several internal organs as payment)...and, while it was definitely worth the wait, I wish I had gotten it sooner!
For those who don't know, Death Wolf (hereafter referred to as DW in order to conserve space and avoid confusion) is the side project of Marduk mastermind Morgan Håkansson. It originally went by a different name, Devil's Whorehouse, but with this new release came a new name...and well it should. While the previous DW releases were almost entirely Danzig/Misfits/Samhain covers, this new album is all original material.
Previous DW albums (being what they were) did include some songs that were fairly cheesy (and while I love the song, I have to admit that the lyrics to the DW original song, Bondage Goddess, are pretty cheesy). Well, there is no cheddar on this album! There are no cheesy lyrics, the guitar solos are well crafted, and the vocals fit the songs like a glove. It's 12 songs of Doomy cohesion. While all the songs are recognizable as being created by the previous incarnations of DW, and there are a couple songs that are reminiscent of past DW albums, they all have a new feel.
Interestingly enough though, the chorus of the first song on the album, Circle of Abomination, sounds somewhat Slayer-esque (back when Slayer were actually worth listening to) and the guitar solo at the end of that song sounds a bit like Arch Enemy. But that's not to say that the songs are derivative, because, regardless of what comparisons they may invoke, you know you are listening to DW. In fact, while the vocals on past records have sounded a lot like Glenn Danzig (intentionally, I'm sure), the vocals on this album are much more individual. Sure Maelstrom still has that Danzig quality to his voice, but that's just the way his voice sounds, it's not like he's doing it just to sound like Danzig.
As befitting a Doomy "horror-rock" album there is a good selection of mid-range and slow tempo songs with only one fast one (and if you know Morgan's work then this might surprise you; as you know, he is obsessed with speed). In fact, the fastest song on the whole album is the one that ends it...and when I say ends, I mean ends. Dawn Of Flesh ends very abruptly; almost jarringly so. But it was clearly intentional, and not just some bizarre accident.
I do love all the songs on the album, but my favorites are Circle of Abomination (Track 1), Wolfs Pallid Sister (Track 7), and Coming Forth By Night (Track 11).
Overall I have to give it a perfect 10, and yeeeeesssss, despite my love affair with Morgan's music I was being objective. I just couldn't honestly find anything wrong with this album. The only thing I did have a problem with, was the lack of lyrics in the booklet...
For those who don't know, Death Wolf (hereafter referred to as DW in order to conserve space and avoid confusion) is the side project of Marduk mastermind Morgan Håkansson. It originally went by a different name, Devil's Whorehouse, but with this new release came a new name...and well it should. While the previous DW releases were almost entirely Danzig/Misfits/Samhain covers, this new album is all original material.
Previous DW albums (being what they were) did include some songs that were fairly cheesy (and while I love the song, I have to admit that the lyrics to the DW original song, Bondage Goddess, are pretty cheesy). Well, there is no cheddar on this album! There are no cheesy lyrics, the guitar solos are well crafted, and the vocals fit the songs like a glove. It's 12 songs of Doomy cohesion. While all the songs are recognizable as being created by the previous incarnations of DW, and there are a couple songs that are reminiscent of past DW albums, they all have a new feel.
Interestingly enough though, the chorus of the first song on the album, Circle of Abomination, sounds somewhat Slayer-esque (back when Slayer were actually worth listening to) and the guitar solo at the end of that song sounds a bit like Arch Enemy. But that's not to say that the songs are derivative, because, regardless of what comparisons they may invoke, you know you are listening to DW. In fact, while the vocals on past records have sounded a lot like Glenn Danzig (intentionally, I'm sure), the vocals on this album are much more individual. Sure Maelstrom still has that Danzig quality to his voice, but that's just the way his voice sounds, it's not like he's doing it just to sound like Danzig.
As befitting a Doomy "horror-rock" album there is a good selection of mid-range and slow tempo songs with only one fast one (and if you know Morgan's work then this might surprise you; as you know, he is obsessed with speed). In fact, the fastest song on the whole album is the one that ends it...and when I say ends, I mean ends. Dawn Of Flesh ends very abruptly; almost jarringly so. But it was clearly intentional, and not just some bizarre accident.
I do love all the songs on the album, but my favorites are Circle of Abomination (Track 1), Wolfs Pallid Sister (Track 7), and Coming Forth By Night (Track 11).
Overall I have to give it a perfect 10, and yeeeeesssss, despite my love affair with Morgan's music I was being objective. I just couldn't honestly find anything wrong with this album. The only thing I did have a problem with, was the lack of lyrics in the booklet...
Amerika Ist Nicht König!
I used to love debating. I always wanted to be the "whip" (you know, the person at the end who pulverizes the opposition with their own arguments and leaves them squirming in their seats...yeah, that whip) because I enjoyed using the oppositions arguments against them. It was exciting and made me feel powerful and superior. I always had to be right, so I knew I could counter any argument. And it was okay back then because people would set aside their personal feelings on the topics debated and a good discussion would ensue. Back in the "olden days" that was how it was done. You would even have to debate a topic on the side you were against, and everyone would learn something by being required to debate both sides of a subject.
Apparently that's not so anymore. These days people get too emotional about the topics being discussed and they never bother to research the other side. Now it's all very personal. I'm not saying that it was totally impersonal back in the Dark Ages, but it seemed to me (at least when I was debating) that we were more inclined to learn both sides of the issue, if for no other reason than so that we could properly and completely put forth our own side. And we would never consider bashing the people we were debating against. Now it's all degenerated into ad hominim argument, where, as soon as someone's side starts to lose, they viciously attack the other people's character instead of putting up an honest argument. You can see that in political debates (anyone catch any of the recent Republican Presidential debates??! And these are our prospective leaders??? Lord have mercy...).
A perfect example is a massive argument raging over at The Local - Sweden...it's an argument that is beyond stupid and shows how little people are paying attention. The argument is over the continued use by The Local of the word "elk" to refer to a moose...
Several people have pointed out in the comments section that European "elk" is the North American "moose" and the North American "elk" is actually a species of deer; not an "elk" at all. The argument is between Americans and Europeans with the Americans getting all mouthy to The Local writers because they keep calling "moose" elk. (At this point my eyes are killing me from all the eye-rolling, but I'll try to keep up)
The problem here is that the Americans can't seem to be bothered to pay attention to the (quite stellar) education by the non-American readers who keep repeatedly informing the Americans that the Swedish "elk" is, in fact, an elk and the North American "elk" is, in fact, not an elk!
So, for those who need some educating, here it is:
The Eurasian "elk" is the Alces alces and looks like this:
Swedes use moose in English because it is a cooler word and as a sop to our American cousins, who are more sensitive about these things. (Emphasis added)
While the Americans and the British can go on squabbling over who has the right to claim the English language as their own, one thing is for certain - the Swedes do not have that right and would never claim it.
The underlying factor is that animals all have a latin name (in this case alces alces) so the imperialist linguistic tendencies of the US/UK should be given a reality check." (sic)
And there it is...seriously, it makes me crazy that Americans think they are smarter than everyone else when it's very often the American that is wrong. This Swede has to point out that using the term "moose" to describe what is rightly an "elk" is "a sop" to assuage the superiority complexes of Americans. Contrary to popular American (especially US American) belief, we are not superior to other nationalities and it will be a Hallelujah Day when Americans as a whole get a clue and stop thinking that!
The Swedish "elk" is an elk so stop having a cow when they call it that.
Oh, and who died and made the US the World Police? But that's a rant for another day.
Apparently that's not so anymore. These days people get too emotional about the topics being discussed and they never bother to research the other side. Now it's all very personal. I'm not saying that it was totally impersonal back in the Dark Ages, but it seemed to me (at least when I was debating) that we were more inclined to learn both sides of the issue, if for no other reason than so that we could properly and completely put forth our own side. And we would never consider bashing the people we were debating against. Now it's all degenerated into ad hominim argument, where, as soon as someone's side starts to lose, they viciously attack the other people's character instead of putting up an honest argument. You can see that in political debates (anyone catch any of the recent Republican Presidential debates??! And these are our prospective leaders??? Lord have mercy...).
A perfect example is a massive argument raging over at The Local - Sweden...it's an argument that is beyond stupid and shows how little people are paying attention. The argument is over the continued use by The Local of the word "elk" to refer to a moose...
Several people have pointed out in the comments section that European "elk" is the North American "moose" and the North American "elk" is actually a species of deer; not an "elk" at all. The argument is between Americans and Europeans with the Americans getting all mouthy to The Local writers because they keep calling "moose" elk. (At this point my eyes are killing me from all the eye-rolling, but I'll try to keep up)
The problem here is that the Americans can't seem to be bothered to pay attention to the (quite stellar) education by the non-American readers who keep repeatedly informing the Americans that the Swedish "elk" is, in fact, an elk and the North American "elk" is, in fact, not an elk!
So, for those who need some educating, here it is:
The Eurasian "elk" is the Alces alces and looks like this:
The North American "elk" is the Cervus canadensis and looks like this:
Just because the Alces alces is called "moose" in the USA and Canada does not mean that it is not an "elk," and just because the Cervus canadensis is called "elk" in the USA and Canada does not mean that it is. One of the comments on a recent elk-related news item said it best, so I'll simply copy and paste it here:
"13:05 September 7, 2011 by stenhuggaren
it is not that hard to understand.Swedes use moose in English because it is a cooler word and as a sop to our American cousins, who are more sensitive about these things. (Emphasis added)
While the Americans and the British can go on squabbling over who has the right to claim the English language as their own, one thing is for certain - the Swedes do not have that right and would never claim it.
The underlying factor is that animals all have a latin name (in this case alces alces) so the imperialist linguistic tendencies of the US/UK should be given a reality check." (sic)
And there it is...seriously, it makes me crazy that Americans think they are smarter than everyone else when it's very often the American that is wrong. This Swede has to point out that using the term "moose" to describe what is rightly an "elk" is "a sop" to assuage the superiority complexes of Americans. Contrary to popular American (especially US American) belief, we are not superior to other nationalities and it will be a Hallelujah Day when Americans as a whole get a clue and stop thinking that!
The Swedish "elk" is an elk so stop having a cow when they call it that.
Oh, and who died and made the US the World Police? But that's a rant for another day.
Guilty Pleasures
I have a confession to make...I love Project Runway. This is the third season I have watched it and I have to say I'm somewhat addicted (not completely though, because if there was something I wanted to watch more then I wouldn't have a problem doing that). Not sure why I like it so much...although I suppose it has something to do with the designing, 'cause it sure ain't the reality aspect -- I detest most reality shows. In fact, the only other reality shows I can even stomach are Deadliest Catch and America's Next Top Model (that's a story for another time). Either that, or it's because I love Tim Gunn...
In every season there seems to have to be some über caustic Prima Dona who makes an ass out of him/her-self. In this season it's Josh McKinley. I don't know where to begin about Josh without sounding like a homophobe or a total hater (which I'm not)...but he has got to go. He made a point during judging tonight that his design alone should keep him in the race because it's a "design" show...well, yes, that's true, but that doesn't excuse his behavior/attitude.
One of the points that Heidi, Michael, and Nina have been trying to drum home with this present group (a point that at least certain individuals seem to keep missing) is the need to be able to work with other people. This season I have seen more group challenges than in previous seasons and I think that's a direct result of the lack of cooperation among the contestants. While Josh is right and it is a design competition, what he's failing to realize is that, in the real world, he's going to have to work with other people, even if he's doing his own designs...at least, if he ever wants to actually work!
So, he didn't go home this episode...unfortunate, that. The designer who did leave wasn't half as bad as she was made out to be. Where Josh somehow came out better through the group challenges, Becky did the opposite. The judges basically told her that she should have exerted more independence but what they don't realize is that sometimes you just can't do that...at least, not unless you're an unbending bully like Josh. For people like Becky, it's often the better part of valor to be the one who bends...unfortunately for her, that meant getting the boot.
There is a moral to this story...don't be an insufferable prick. Sure, you might get your way in the short term, but bullies don't always make out like bandits (re: Pint-Sized Bully Pays...When Victim Fights Back), and nobody likes a bully (that's right, those "friends" you think you have? They don't like you. And the other bullies? Yeah, they don't like you either).
I'll get off my soapbox now...two nights in a row is just too much pontificating. But go check out the designs through the image link if you haven't been watching. Remember, these may be the people who dress you in the future, so you might want to get acquainted.
In every season there seems to have to be some über caustic Prima Dona who makes an ass out of him/her-self. In this season it's Josh McKinley. I don't know where to begin about Josh without sounding like a homophobe or a total hater (which I'm not)...but he has got to go. He made a point during judging tonight that his design alone should keep him in the race because it's a "design" show...well, yes, that's true, but that doesn't excuse his behavior/attitude.
One of the points that Heidi, Michael, and Nina have been trying to drum home with this present group (a point that at least certain individuals seem to keep missing) is the need to be able to work with other people. This season I have seen more group challenges than in previous seasons and I think that's a direct result of the lack of cooperation among the contestants. While Josh is right and it is a design competition, what he's failing to realize is that, in the real world, he's going to have to work with other people, even if he's doing his own designs...at least, if he ever wants to actually work!
So, he didn't go home this episode...unfortunate, that. The designer who did leave wasn't half as bad as she was made out to be. Where Josh somehow came out better through the group challenges, Becky did the opposite. The judges basically told her that she should have exerted more independence but what they don't realize is that sometimes you just can't do that...at least, not unless you're an unbending bully like Josh. For people like Becky, it's often the better part of valor to be the one who bends...unfortunately for her, that meant getting the boot.
There is a moral to this story...don't be an insufferable prick. Sure, you might get your way in the short term, but bullies don't always make out like bandits (re: Pint-Sized Bully Pays...When Victim Fights Back), and nobody likes a bully (that's right, those "friends" you think you have? They don't like you. And the other bullies? Yeah, they don't like you either).
I'll get off my soapbox now...two nights in a row is just too much pontificating. But go check out the designs through the image link if you haven't been watching. Remember, these may be the people who dress you in the future, so you might want to get acquainted.
Hate Is Not The Opposite Of Love
Two things have happened this morning that suggest today is going to be...interesting (bear in mind, I began writing this at 10 minutes to 7 am so I've got loads of the day left in which more "interesting" things can happen).
The first incident occurred very early this morning and had me freaking out for several hours -- I had an alarming dream in which I found out that someone I care about had died. As far as I'm aware "Gustav" still has a heartbeat, so I'm hoping that, like the Death card in a Tarot deck, the "death" in my dream was just a metaphor for certain events that appear to have recently transpired in the life of "Gustav".
The second event, and the one I'm going to focus on, happened just a short time ago on Facebook. Someone I was "friends" with has deleted me. To be honest, I have been expecting it for ages now, I'm a bit surprised it's taken this long. But the reason I was deleted today of all days (I'm sure) is because of something I said on a post of this person's this morning. The original rant went something like, "I'm not really a hater, it's just that some people make it easy to hate them." My response to that was that you have to care in order to hate, and why do you care about someone you obviously consider insignificant?
That's a good question. There's an awful lot of "hating" in the Metal community (yes, the person in question is a member of that community) with people professing hatred toward people that, in the very next breath, they proclaim to not care about.
Sorry, but you can't hate someone you don't care about. Either you don't care, or you hate, you can't do both. Too many people think that hate is the opposite of love but that's just not true. Love and hate are on the same side of the coin. The opposite of love, and therefore the opposite of hate, is indifference. If you truly "don't care" about someone then you don't care! You don't care what happens to them and their thoughts, feelings, and actions make no difference to you; they don't affect you positively or negatively. But as soon as you claim that you hate someone, then that shows that you care about them. You care about what they are saying and what they are doing. You care enough about them that you are letting it affect you...and to hate them for that means that you care a lot!
Over the last couple of days I have been doing some serious research into certain things that interest me within the Metal community and I've been coming across more and more evidence that many in this community are full of crap. Don't worry, I still like you, I just think you need to get a clue.
There's a lot of focus on hating one group or another for whatever reason and many of the loudest screamers are shouting about how things need to be one way for them and another way for "the masses." A recent example is Behemoth's Adam "Nergal" Darski being "crusaded" against by the Catholic Church. I find the reaction to this laughable. All the pro-Nergal folk are railing against the Church for doing exactly what the Metal community have been doing to the Church for decades! Hell-o! Turnabout is fair play. You expect them to sit back and take your vitriol but you get your nose out of joint when you get what you've just served! Poor babies.
And why is it that all of your ire is seemingly reserved for Christianity? As a student of history I'm well aware that it's not only Christians who have waged wars and forced their belief systems on others. So why focus only on them? My guess is that you care. You care a lot. And what you care so much about is the fact that you are confused by the fact that you care. Do you even know what you believe? Do you even know what they believe? Some of you profess to be against them because of their morality but you obviously fail to realize that morality is vitally necessary to the survival of any group! How many of you vilify those that the media tells you are guilty of a crime? Well, if "morality" is so useless then where's the crime?
Morality is not a Christian construct. Our societies have certain rules governing the conduct of the people in them. Those rules are necessary because without them we would be living in chaos. And those of you who think that would be fine better take a good hard think about what that actually means. Even the most Chaos-loving organizations are just that, organized. Where there is organization there can be no chaos and where there is chaos there can be no organization. Think about what you believe before you hypocritically force that belief on another.
The first incident occurred very early this morning and had me freaking out for several hours -- I had an alarming dream in which I found out that someone I care about had died. As far as I'm aware "Gustav" still has a heartbeat, so I'm hoping that, like the Death card in a Tarot deck, the "death" in my dream was just a metaphor for certain events that appear to have recently transpired in the life of "Gustav".
The second event, and the one I'm going to focus on, happened just a short time ago on Facebook. Someone I was "friends" with has deleted me. To be honest, I have been expecting it for ages now, I'm a bit surprised it's taken this long. But the reason I was deleted today of all days (I'm sure) is because of something I said on a post of this person's this morning. The original rant went something like, "I'm not really a hater, it's just that some people make it easy to hate them." My response to that was that you have to care in order to hate, and why do you care about someone you obviously consider insignificant?
That's a good question. There's an awful lot of "hating" in the Metal community (yes, the person in question is a member of that community) with people professing hatred toward people that, in the very next breath, they proclaim to not care about.
Sorry, but you can't hate someone you don't care about. Either you don't care, or you hate, you can't do both. Too many people think that hate is the opposite of love but that's just not true. Love and hate are on the same side of the coin. The opposite of love, and therefore the opposite of hate, is indifference. If you truly "don't care" about someone then you don't care! You don't care what happens to them and their thoughts, feelings, and actions make no difference to you; they don't affect you positively or negatively. But as soon as you claim that you hate someone, then that shows that you care about them. You care about what they are saying and what they are doing. You care enough about them that you are letting it affect you...and to hate them for that means that you care a lot!
Over the last couple of days I have been doing some serious research into certain things that interest me within the Metal community and I've been coming across more and more evidence that many in this community are full of crap. Don't worry, I still like you, I just think you need to get a clue.
There's a lot of focus on hating one group or another for whatever reason and many of the loudest screamers are shouting about how things need to be one way for them and another way for "the masses." A recent example is Behemoth's Adam "Nergal" Darski being "crusaded" against by the Catholic Church. I find the reaction to this laughable. All the pro-Nergal folk are railing against the Church for doing exactly what the Metal community have been doing to the Church for decades! Hell-o! Turnabout is fair play. You expect them to sit back and take your vitriol but you get your nose out of joint when you get what you've just served! Poor babies.
And why is it that all of your ire is seemingly reserved for Christianity? As a student of history I'm well aware that it's not only Christians who have waged wars and forced their belief systems on others. So why focus only on them? My guess is that you care. You care a lot. And what you care so much about is the fact that you are confused by the fact that you care. Do you even know what you believe? Do you even know what they believe? Some of you profess to be against them because of their morality but you obviously fail to realize that morality is vitally necessary to the survival of any group! How many of you vilify those that the media tells you are guilty of a crime? Well, if "morality" is so useless then where's the crime?
Morality is not a Christian construct. Our societies have certain rules governing the conduct of the people in them. Those rules are necessary because without them we would be living in chaos. And those of you who think that would be fine better take a good hard think about what that actually means. Even the most Chaos-loving organizations are just that, organized. Where there is organization there can be no chaos and where there is chaos there can be no organization. Think about what you believe before you hypocritically force that belief on another.
The Original Night Stalker
Did you know that there was a Night Stalker before the Night Stalker? Yes, it's true; there was a murdering rapist operating in California from June 18, 1976–May 4, 1986 who became known as the Original Night Stalker. I was not aware of this until I saw an episode of Cold Case Files today.
The Original Night Stalker was first identified in Orange County, California but later connected with a spate of rapes in the Sacramento area, where he was known as the East Area Rapist. All told, this man can be linked, by either DNA or MO, to nearly 200 crimes, making him one of the (if not the) most prolific serial criminals in California history.
His earliest crimes, in Northern California, were almost exclusively rapes, but after gaining notoriety in the press, the EAR began to escalate his violence, which resulted in a homicide on February 2, 1978. Investigators believe the media attention directly encouraged the EAR to take greater risks, seeing the press coverage as a challenge. In December of 1979, the first Original Night Stalker murder occurred in Southern California, and a total of 10 murders were perpetrated in the Orange County area before the ONS disappeared from the radar.
Like the Zodiac, the EAR/ONS has never been caught, and, like the Zodiac, he may never be caught. Composite portraits of the alleged killer exist, as, of course, does DNA evidence, but no logical links to suspects have thus far panned out.
But this man's criminal activity apparently didn't begin with the Northern California rapes. Between April 1974 and December 1975, a spate of "burglaries" (roughly 125) occurred in Visalia, California. The perpetrator of these "burglaries" became known as the Visalia Ransacker as his primary goal seemed to be property destruction, not theft. Through witness descriptions and modus operandi the Ransacker was linked to the EAR/ONS.
As of 2011, no firm suspect has been identified and the investigation is ongoing. The suspect was described as being in his 20's at the time of these crimes, which would put him in his 50's or 60's now. There is also speculation that he may no longer be alive. If you have an interest in learning more, or you happen to be the EAR/ONS/Ransacker, you can visit the EAR/ONS victim memorial site here.
The Original Night Stalker was first identified in Orange County, California but later connected with a spate of rapes in the Sacramento area, where he was known as the East Area Rapist. All told, this man can be linked, by either DNA or MO, to nearly 200 crimes, making him one of the (if not the) most prolific serial criminals in California history.
His earliest crimes, in Northern California, were almost exclusively rapes, but after gaining notoriety in the press, the EAR began to escalate his violence, which resulted in a homicide on February 2, 1978. Investigators believe the media attention directly encouraged the EAR to take greater risks, seeing the press coverage as a challenge. In December of 1979, the first Original Night Stalker murder occurred in Southern California, and a total of 10 murders were perpetrated in the Orange County area before the ONS disappeared from the radar.
Like the Zodiac, the EAR/ONS has never been caught, and, like the Zodiac, he may never be caught. Composite portraits of the alleged killer exist, as, of course, does DNA evidence, but no logical links to suspects have thus far panned out.
But this man's criminal activity apparently didn't begin with the Northern California rapes. Between April 1974 and December 1975, a spate of "burglaries" (roughly 125) occurred in Visalia, California. The perpetrator of these "burglaries" became known as the Visalia Ransacker as his primary goal seemed to be property destruction, not theft. Through witness descriptions and modus operandi the Ransacker was linked to the EAR/ONS.
As of 2011, no firm suspect has been identified and the investigation is ongoing. The suspect was described as being in his 20's at the time of these crimes, which would put him in his 50's or 60's now. There is also speculation that he may no longer be alive. If you have an interest in learning more, or you happen to be the EAR/ONS/Ransacker, you can visit the EAR/ONS victim memorial site here.
The Eye Of The Tigress
Okay, so I recognize that I've been a tad cranky the last couple of days (for reasons I won't go into). In an effort to cheer myself up I'm posting some videos that never fail to make me smile.
BELOW: Mouse Trap. Note: this is not actually a mouse -- it's a rat. I love rats, I used to have a mating pair, but this video is inspirational; watch it to the end.
BELOW: Chicken Little. The song is part of Dragostea Din Tei, by O-Zone.
BELOW: You Sexy Thing. It's a bit creepy, actually, now that I think about it...
The Entitlement Era
There is a new bitch-fest going on over Spotify, the Swedish streaming audio service. It was essentially started by Metalsucks writer/co-founder Ben "Vince Neilstein" Umanov. Apparently he's got his panties in a bind because both Century Media and Metal Blade have pulled their catalogs from Spotify.
According to what I've read (and bear in mind I haven't done a particularly thorough research job on this because it makes me angry to even think about this), Spotify are not paying the artists diddly squat for the right to put their music on the site. Essentially, they are robbing Peter in order to allow Paul to have his cake and eat it, too. Because this issue makes me teeth-grindingly pissed off I responded to the post linkd above (it's the blog of Borknagar guitarist Jens Ryland) with the following diatribe:
Two points that seem to be missed in all this:
According to what I've read (and bear in mind I haven't done a particularly thorough research job on this because it makes me angry to even think about this), Spotify are not paying the artists diddly squat for the right to put their music on the site. Essentially, they are robbing Peter in order to allow Paul to have his cake and eat it, too. Because this issue makes me teeth-grindingly pissed off I responded to the post linkd above (it's the blog of Borknagar guitarist Jens Ryland) with the following diatribe:
Two points that seem to be missed in all this:
1) Society has become full of the belief in their own entitlement.
2) If it’s all so great and you’d “pay more” for the service, then why the hell don’t you just buy the album? Because you’re a lazy git.
First point, it sickens me to read all this BS about how the music has got to be more accessible and cheaper. What’s being ignored is the fact that this is a business, not charity. Jens, you are not simply an artist, you are a business man — this is your work, and you should be getting paid for it regardless of the mode of delivery. Period. End of story.
The reason that services like Spotify even exist is because people have become so caught up in the belief in their own entitlement that they actually believe that they have THE RIGHT to have the music. What they are blind to, is the fact that it’s a privilege, not a right. And with a privilege there is a responsibility. In this case, that responsibility is to pay the people who give it to you (meaning the musicians who create it).
Unfortunately, it’s no longer just music that is getting shafted by this entitlement mentality, now it’s books and movies and loads of other things.
Entitlement issues are at the heart of most problems; someone has an all-consuming belief in their right to something, so they do all in their power to make sure they get it — as cheaply as possible, because (heaven forbid!) they should have to actually shell out money. But there is no such thing as a free lunch; someone, somewhere, at some time, is going to have to pay. Even in a barter society you are trading something for something.
Second point, I keep reading all these people say they have the premium service and they would gladly pay more for it…well, if you’re willing to pay more for it then why are you bitching about the price of a CD or an LP?! Why not do as you say and actually support the bands by buying the CD/LP? The argument then is that “it’s so much more convenient.” Convenience. Yeah, it’s convenient because you’re too damn lazy to get the other formats. They like to say garbage like, “well I can have 5,000 songs at my fingertips!” Sorry, do you actually listen to all 5,000 songs at the same time? No? I thought not. It’s not actually going to kill you to take a CD in the car with you…just thought I’d point that out.
I am so sick of this entitlement attitude. They all claim they are supporting the musicians, but then they turn around and rip you off.
If It's Free Take Three
Very often I see offers from bands or stores that say something like, "you get (insert item A here) free when you buy (insert item B here)." Obviously I have a problem with this or I wouldn't be blogging about it. But here's the problem I have...if you have to buy something to get the "free" stuff, then the stuff isn't actually free, is it? Regardless of what you paid for the entire package, you are still paying for it!
The wording in offers like this is simply semantics -- you aren't actually getting anything free, you are simply getting it for a reduced rate. It's the same with offers such as, "buy one, get one half off," or "buy two, get the third free." In both cases you are simply paying less for more -- but you are still paying for all of it.
"Wait, how does that work?!"
Well, duh...
In order for something to be truly free, you would have to not spend any money to actually get it. So, when a band tells you that you get,
"FREE POSTER when you purchase the Sepultura T-SHIRT + ALBUM PACK or the DOUBLE VINYL of KAIROS at: http://bit.ly/sepnbusa,"
then you know that you are paying for the poster because, in order to get it, you have to buy the other stuff. Simple as that. What these offers are is actually cleverly worded false advertising because nothing you're getting is actually free.
A good example of something that is actually free is the free samples you get in grocery stores. Those are free because you don't have to buy anything to get it. And as my dad says, "if it's free, take three."
So, for all you out there who like to give away free stuff...don't call it free unless it actually is.
The wording in offers like this is simply semantics -- you aren't actually getting anything free, you are simply getting it for a reduced rate. It's the same with offers such as, "buy one, get one half off," or "buy two, get the third free." In both cases you are simply paying less for more -- but you are still paying for all of it.
"Wait, how does that work?!"
Well, duh...
In order for something to be truly free, you would have to not spend any money to actually get it. So, when a band tells you that you get,
"FREE POSTER when you purchase the Sepultura T-SHIRT + ALBUM PACK or the DOUBLE VINYL of KAIROS at: http://bit.ly/sepnbusa,"
then you know that you are paying for the poster because, in order to get it, you have to buy the other stuff. Simple as that. What these offers are is actually cleverly worded false advertising because nothing you're getting is actually free.
A good example of something that is actually free is the free samples you get in grocery stores. Those are free because you don't have to buy anything to get it. And as my dad says, "if it's free, take three."
So, for all you out there who like to give away free stuff...don't call it free unless it actually is.
