Click here to see the new low in American consumerism
For those who don't feel like going over there, an executive summary: An employee of a Wal-Mart in Long Island was trampled to death by customers, who unhinged the door to the store to get inside.
What the fuck?
When did it become worth it to subject yourself to such a hostile environment to save 100 bucks on something you don't need? I don't think the employee wanted to be there that day.. no one wants to work the big retail days. Why? Many of the people are rude and impatient, and do not give a damn about the people working there. That's been my experience.
I work at a retail store, and I am very thankful that I live in a place where the rude, obnoxious customers do not become feral, mindless beasts when they decide to camp outside a store waiting for the price cuts on items they really don't need. If these people were waiting for water while their stomach distended and mind wandered from dehydration, maybe I could forgive them, but they weren't; they were a group of people waiting to get in line and pay for such items as digital cameras, HDTVs, laptops, iPods. Words cannot express how disgusted that makes me.
First of all, is your time and health not worth more to you than the money you save camping out in front of a Wal-Mart? If you have that much time and need money so badly, why are you not getting another job?
Secondly, if you're that desperate to save money, why are you buying such things? I can't emphasize it enough that these items are non-essential. Go, pay your bills, feed your children, and rethink spending seven hundred dollars just so you can save one!
The article above has a lot on the fault of Wal-Mart, which is correct to a certain extent, but no matter the situation, people should be able to control themselves; someone should have stopped and picked the fellow up. No one did; no one wanted to give up their precious deal, because they didn't stop and think about the damage being done.
Sure, it's about group mentality, but that is far from an excuse. Mosh pits are sometimes dangerous places to be, but if everyone has the same attitude (ie have fun but no one gets hurt), then people are fine. If you fall down in a mosh pit, people will A) Form a ring around you B) Pick you up and C) Ask you if you are okay. Hell, I've seen people do that when someone loses a shoe. That people can't do that when a person is being trampled to death is pathetic and disgusting.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
More First Impressions: Funeral for a Friend & A Static Lullaby
In a throwback to about 5 years ago, two of my favourite bands from back then have released new albums. Unlike a lot of the music in the same vein (which I guess you would call post-hardcore or some such nonsense), these bands have stayed with me and progressed enough that I think it would be criminal to lump them in with some of the other bands in the genre.
A Static Lullaby - Rattlesnake!
Well, you can tell from the title that this one is going to be a little bit more fun. I am not really sure how to describe A Static Lullaby, except that when they started, they were fairly indistinguishable from other bands such as Story of the Year and ... damn, do you know what? I really don't remember a lot of bands from back then. It just goes to show you how forgettable some of that music was. Anyway, they were screamy, a little bit hard, a little bit punk, but mostly screamy. For their second album they went fairly lacklustre (IMHO), but for the third they pulled out all the stops and decided to make something unique to them.
Their third album was dark and heavily themed. It still contained a lot of screaming and a little bit of the 'whiny' (though I do not mean that in a band way) contrasting vocals characteristic of their earlier albums, but stepped up the hard. The lyrics were heavy with dark themes of sexuality, and relationships that I didn't think came across in a cheesy way.
I guess I should talk about the album I am reviewing here. They seem to have kept the momentum from the last album going, while moving a little bit into the territory of Everytime I Die, with heavier, riff-driven guitars and plenty of chorus vocals. This is most obvious on the first track, but the whole album bears the influence. There has been only one stand-out, a song called the Prestige on Track 5, which seems to be about being a demon or the devil or something. It has a great, repeated lyric, heavy breakdown near the end. Other than that, there are no standouts, unless you count the cover of Britney Spears' Toxic; it seems to be just a really solid album, and therein lies my main issue. I wish the songs distinguished themselves from each other a bit more. That may be a first impressions thing though; sometimes when albums seem all the same, that just means it takes time to appreciate the nuances, a wholly rewarding experience.
I guess we'll see if that's the case. In the mean time, for a first impression, I will give this one a rating of...
7/10
Funeral for a Friend - Memory and Humanity
I am writing this one during my very first listen to it, so it really, truly, is a bonafide first impression.
The great thing about this one is that I think it could have very wide appeal. It's balladic, hard, and has some great guitar. I am wary of albums that I like so much on the very first listen, though; sometimes you get sick of them pretty fast. It really is a great album for them, though, falling somewhere between their first and second albums (this is the fourth) in terms of the sound.
To me, Funeral For a Friends strength has always been how tight their sound is. Every single instrument is there for a reason and contributes to the song. It just all sounds so .. deliberate. No one instrument in the band is really that unique, but they combine them together so well. Bah, I really need to practice my ability to describe music; this is tough.
I am not sure what else to say, but if you are a fan of this sort of music, this is one of the most worthy releases I have heard in a long time. I can't emphasize how much FFAF has borrowed from the strengths of each of their previous albums. My only critique here is that there is nothing really new, just reimaginings and recombination of what they have done before. The result, though, is a very strong album, where they seem very comfortable with their sound and do it well.
9/10.
A Static Lullaby - Rattlesnake!
Well, you can tell from the title that this one is going to be a little bit more fun. I am not really sure how to describe A Static Lullaby, except that when they started, they were fairly indistinguishable from other bands such as Story of the Year and ... damn, do you know what? I really don't remember a lot of bands from back then. It just goes to show you how forgettable some of that music was. Anyway, they were screamy, a little bit hard, a little bit punk, but mostly screamy. For their second album they went fairly lacklustre (IMHO), but for the third they pulled out all the stops and decided to make something unique to them.
Their third album was dark and heavily themed. It still contained a lot of screaming and a little bit of the 'whiny' (though I do not mean that in a band way) contrasting vocals characteristic of their earlier albums, but stepped up the hard. The lyrics were heavy with dark themes of sexuality, and relationships that I didn't think came across in a cheesy way.
I guess I should talk about the album I am reviewing here. They seem to have kept the momentum from the last album going, while moving a little bit into the territory of Everytime I Die, with heavier, riff-driven guitars and plenty of chorus vocals. This is most obvious on the first track, but the whole album bears the influence. There has been only one stand-out, a song called the Prestige on Track 5, which seems to be about being a demon or the devil or something. It has a great, repeated lyric, heavy breakdown near the end. Other than that, there are no standouts, unless you count the cover of Britney Spears' Toxic; it seems to be just a really solid album, and therein lies my main issue. I wish the songs distinguished themselves from each other a bit more. That may be a first impressions thing though; sometimes when albums seem all the same, that just means it takes time to appreciate the nuances, a wholly rewarding experience.
I guess we'll see if that's the case. In the mean time, for a first impression, I will give this one a rating of...
7/10
Funeral for a Friend - Memory and Humanity
I am writing this one during my very first listen to it, so it really, truly, is a bonafide first impression.
The great thing about this one is that I think it could have very wide appeal. It's balladic, hard, and has some great guitar. I am wary of albums that I like so much on the very first listen, though; sometimes you get sick of them pretty fast. It really is a great album for them, though, falling somewhere between their first and second albums (this is the fourth) in terms of the sound.
To me, Funeral For a Friends strength has always been how tight their sound is. Every single instrument is there for a reason and contributes to the song. It just all sounds so .. deliberate. No one instrument in the band is really that unique, but they combine them together so well. Bah, I really need to practice my ability to describe music; this is tough.
I am not sure what else to say, but if you are a fan of this sort of music, this is one of the most worthy releases I have heard in a long time. I can't emphasize how much FFAF has borrowed from the strengths of each of their previous albums. My only critique here is that there is nothing really new, just reimaginings and recombination of what they have done before. The result, though, is a very strong album, where they seem very comfortable with their sound and do it well.
9/10.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Devil's Delusion
Found on Amazon.ca, on the summary page for The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.
I was poking around in books that were giving the religious response to the 'New Atheist' works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc... I was trying to find one that I thought would be a well-argued, but not petty, response to these best-selling books (of which I have only read one - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins). Well, maybe my first mistake was clicking on the link for a book called The Devil's Delusion (already sounds horribly reactionary, doesn't it?). Apparently Dawkins struck a few nerves (it is rather an inflammatory title), as there is also a book called The Dawkins Delusion somewhere out there.
Anyway, I came across this list of questions and answers, purportedly meant to summarize the contents of the book. I am going to list them all and provide my own (probably long-winded) comments:
"Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close."
Presumably this book is at least somewhat a response to The God Delusion, so shouldn't you rather address Dawkins' position that the burden of proof should reside with the religious voice?
"Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close."
I believe, and Dawkins and Carl Sagan would appear to agree with me, that not knowing something is no reason to apply an arbitrary solution to the problem. Call me a proof man, but I'm hedging my bets until reality is revealed conclusively. I will take that to the grave, too, and it does not bother me.
"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close."
Not much to say about this one, except that I hope the author at least has the sense to acknowledge or address the anthropomorphic principle.
"Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough."
This is offensive; I am sure many scientists are trying to reconcile their beliefs with their studies, and falling on both sides of the fence.
"Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough."
I fail to see how this is an argument in the favour of God.
"Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close."
This discourse must be interesting. I don't agree but I would be open to reading this component. The answer is incredibly snarky, though, and does not reflect the attitudes of an author I would enjoy.
"Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough."
The question is too broad (within the sciences at large? why not just address your 'New Atheists?') and the answer doesn't even really fit with the question. I think you would find many scientists much more receptive if you brought them evidence; reproducible evident would be event better. That's how scientists think. It's not close-minded; it's the way we test the world, so that when we declare something, we know that it will stand up to reason. We wouldn't be anywhere today (in terms of knowledge) if people were not questioning, and questioning is not a close-minded thing.
"Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark."
I'm tempted to just say 'what?' but I think that would not do this question justice. I think that, depending on how you define rational, religion could be claimed to be very irrational, but so could atheism. Firmly believing something, or disbelieving it, with no proof of either position, is something that I consider irrational. I can elaborate on that if anyone desires, but this post is getting to be long.
"Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on."
Well, my intellectual contempt stems from poorly framed questions such as these, which would appear not to directly address any of the points made in the book this one is named after. I sincerely hope that this is not the author that has written this summary, and that this part of the summary does not reflect the contents of the book, but I will not be buying the book because this is the way it has been represented. If you want to write inflammatory books that are meant to raise people's ire and bring this debate down to schoolyard scraps with words, that's fine. I just won't buy your book, and will probably think less of you. You are, after all, just proving Dawkins right when he believes that religion can not be debated.
(All quotes taken lovingly from Amazon.ca , Amazon.com, Inc's Canadian website)
I was poking around in books that were giving the religious response to the 'New Atheist' works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc... I was trying to find one that I thought would be a well-argued, but not petty, response to these best-selling books (of which I have only read one - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins). Well, maybe my first mistake was clicking on the link for a book called The Devil's Delusion (already sounds horribly reactionary, doesn't it?). Apparently Dawkins struck a few nerves (it is rather an inflammatory title), as there is also a book called The Dawkins Delusion somewhere out there.
Anyway, I came across this list of questions and answers, purportedly meant to summarize the contents of the book. I am going to list them all and provide my own (probably long-winded) comments:
"Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close."
Presumably this book is at least somewhat a response to The God Delusion, so shouldn't you rather address Dawkins' position that the burden of proof should reside with the religious voice?
"Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close."
I believe, and Dawkins and Carl Sagan would appear to agree with me, that not knowing something is no reason to apply an arbitrary solution to the problem. Call me a proof man, but I'm hedging my bets until reality is revealed conclusively. I will take that to the grave, too, and it does not bother me.
"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close."
Not much to say about this one, except that I hope the author at least has the sense to acknowledge or address the anthropomorphic principle.
"Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough."
This is offensive; I am sure many scientists are trying to reconcile their beliefs with their studies, and falling on both sides of the fence.
"Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough."
I fail to see how this is an argument in the favour of God.
"Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close."
This discourse must be interesting. I don't agree but I would be open to reading this component. The answer is incredibly snarky, though, and does not reflect the attitudes of an author I would enjoy.
"Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough."
The question is too broad (within the sciences at large? why not just address your 'New Atheists?') and the answer doesn't even really fit with the question. I think you would find many scientists much more receptive if you brought them evidence; reproducible evident would be event better. That's how scientists think. It's not close-minded; it's the way we test the world, so that when we declare something, we know that it will stand up to reason. We wouldn't be anywhere today (in terms of knowledge) if people were not questioning, and questioning is not a close-minded thing.
"Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark."
I'm tempted to just say 'what?' but I think that would not do this question justice. I think that, depending on how you define rational, religion could be claimed to be very irrational, but so could atheism. Firmly believing something, or disbelieving it, with no proof of either position, is something that I consider irrational. I can elaborate on that if anyone desires, but this post is getting to be long.
"Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on."
Well, my intellectual contempt stems from poorly framed questions such as these, which would appear not to directly address any of the points made in the book this one is named after. I sincerely hope that this is not the author that has written this summary, and that this part of the summary does not reflect the contents of the book, but I will not be buying the book because this is the way it has been represented. If you want to write inflammatory books that are meant to raise people's ire and bring this debate down to schoolyard scraps with words, that's fine. I just won't buy your book, and will probably think less of you. You are, after all, just proving Dawkins right when he believes that religion can not be debated.
(All quotes taken lovingly from Amazon.ca , Amazon.com, Inc's Canadian website)
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Internet Awesomeness
So, webcomics are officially the worst time-suck on the internet. Worse than facebook. Seriously. In that line of thought, look at these comics which I found to be gratuitously humorous.
Duty Calls on xkcd
The Annual Brain Flush on Wasted Talent
Oh man, do these ever hit reality right on the mark.
Duty Calls on xkcd
The Annual Brain Flush on Wasted Talent
Oh man, do these ever hit reality right on the mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)