In my opinion, satellite radio is absolutely worth paying for. The main reasons are because satellite radio plays the music I want to hear, and terrestrial radio doesn't. And because satellite radio is commercial free. Terrestrial radio is free but it doesn't play the music I want to hear, and it's littered with annoying commercial advertising. So it's a trade off, but one that's well worth it for me. Satellite radio should charge people because it's providing a service that terrestrial radio doesn't provide. Plus you can listen to satellite radio for free on the Internet so it's really not that bad, nor is it that expensive if you do pay for it.
I like the current radioscape and I hope it remains the way it is. I don't see very much change occurring in the next ten years, and that's a good thing because I like things the way they are. I'm a musician and if music is my bread and butter, then satellite radio is the oven and the churn. You might have to pay for satellite radio, but look at the bright side. Thanks to the Internet and the advent of peer to peer file sharing programs and bit torrents, we don't have to buy music anymore. We can just download songs and even entire albums for free. However, whether we should or shouldn't pirate music is another matter, and another blog post.
http://www.xmradio.com/
Friday, June 27, 2008
One Small Step For Man... One Giant Leap For Freedom Of Speech!!
I couldn't be more thrilled about the fact that satellite radio is not governed by the FCC. In my vocabulary, FCC stands for the Failure to Communicate Commission. The FCC filters out so much cool stuff that terrestrial radio has become extremely boring, tasteless, and watered down. That's exactly why I don't listen to terrestrial radio. Terrestrial radio only plays pop music from MTV, or stuffy old classical music. Other than the occasional good jazz composition, terrestrial radio has nothing to offer me. If I want to hear the music that I really listen to, I have to listen to satellite radio because only satellite radio will play it. So if it wasn't for satellite radio and the fact that it's not governed by the FCC, I wouldn't be able to hear my favorite bands on the radio.
I pray the FCC never gains control of satellite radio, that would be a truly sad day for people who enjoy real music, and real radio content. Being a musician myself, I strongly believe that music needs to have an uncensored medium because the majority of music that has been produced in the world, doesn't conform to FCC regulations. Underground music needs to have a medium where it can be broadcast in a mass media format because there is a large market out there for it. Not in the sense that there is money to be made, although there is. But in the sense that people who produce underground music, and the people who listen to underground music need to have a mass media outlet for it so they can enjoy it, and promote it.
http://www.sirius.com/
I pray the FCC never gains control of satellite radio, that would be a truly sad day for people who enjoy real music, and real radio content. Being a musician myself, I strongly believe that music needs to have an uncensored medium because the majority of music that has been produced in the world, doesn't conform to FCC regulations. Underground music needs to have a medium where it can be broadcast in a mass media format because there is a large market out there for it. Not in the sense that there is money to be made, although there is. But in the sense that people who produce underground music, and the people who listen to underground music need to have a mass media outlet for it so they can enjoy it, and promote it.
http://www.sirius.com/
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Water for Elephants Essay
Jacob Jankowski, the novel's protagonist, comes from an upper class background and in an ironic twist of fate, is repositioned to lower class status due to an unfortunate accident. The novel is told in flashback by Jacob. He reminisces on the exciting and uncertain period he spent with the Benzini Brothers circus, which he joined during the Great Depression. The memories start when Jacob is twenty three years old and studying for his finals as a veterinary student. Jacob’s father was a veterinarian also and Jacob planned to join his practice. Unfortunately, Jacob learns that his parents have been killed in a car accident, leaving him penniless.
He finds out that his father was greatly in debt because he had been treating animals without pay as well as mortgaging the family home to provide Jacob with an Ivy League education. Jacob goes through a breakdown and is forced to drop out of Cornell University just shy of graduation. He jumps on a train only to learn that it is a circus train. When the owner of the circus, Uncle Al, learns of his training as a vet, Jacob is hired to care for a menagerie of exotic circus animals. The novel chronicles Jacob’s experiences with the circus as he learns the hierarchy of circus workers and performers, and gains an understanding of the injustices of circus life while fighting to maintain his own moral identity. He falls in love with Marlena, one of the show's star performers. This romance is complicated by Marlena's husband, August, the abusive animal trainer who beats both his wife and the animals Jacob takes care of. August is suspicious of their relationship and beats Marlena and Jacob. Soon after, Marlena leaves August. This is the pivotal event which leads to the ultimate downfall of the circus. Toward the end, several workers who had been thrown off the train previously, come back and release the animals causing a stampede during the performance. Amidst the panic and chaos, August is murdered. As a result of all of this taking place during a circus performance, the circus goes out of business. Marlena and Jacob, along with several circus animals, leave and begin their new life together. The story resolves itself with a violent but happy and optimistic ending.
The entire circus is a metaphor that describes the uneasy and often violent relationship between the ruling class and the poor lower class within society. The circus is a microcosm and represents the larger society's economic hardship and class war, portraying it on a personal level. The stampede of animals in the prologue paints a powerful picture of rebellion and revolution as the under class overthrows the sadistic and oppressive ruling class within the hierarchy of the circus. Jacob represents John Q Public, the blue collar working man in the throes of economic oppression. Uncle Al and August represent the upper class which abuses and exploits the working class. Locked within this circus's strict class system was a deep anger and resentment at injustice. The turmoil gathered steam until a backlash was unleashed and it manifested itself as pandemonium and violence. We don't have to go back to the time of the great depression to witness tension between the rich and the poor. In recent times, we have seen many riots in lower class and inner city neighborhoods. Rioting, robbing, looting, and violence are common methods of rebelling against the upper class and continue to plague our society in modern times.
The animals and the lowest class workers were pushed beyond the point of tolerance and resorted to murder and mayhem to bring down the hierarchy and the well-defined class structure of the circus. The whole circus system paralleled the division between the privileged and the destitute during the great depression and helps explain much of the unrest of the thirties as well as how movements like socialism and communism gained much more appeal during the 1930's than at any other time in our nation's history. I thought the novel portrayed these elements of the era in a very original and satirical fashion. The circus was structured in terms of economics, who got paid and when and how much. It functioned like a government, certain people made decisions, others couldn't. Certain people had a voice in those decisions, others didn't. One side had the power, the other side was expendable. In the end, morality and virtue prevail over greed and power, and that is the true message behind this story.
He finds out that his father was greatly in debt because he had been treating animals without pay as well as mortgaging the family home to provide Jacob with an Ivy League education. Jacob goes through a breakdown and is forced to drop out of Cornell University just shy of graduation. He jumps on a train only to learn that it is a circus train. When the owner of the circus, Uncle Al, learns of his training as a vet, Jacob is hired to care for a menagerie of exotic circus animals. The novel chronicles Jacob’s experiences with the circus as he learns the hierarchy of circus workers and performers, and gains an understanding of the injustices of circus life while fighting to maintain his own moral identity. He falls in love with Marlena, one of the show's star performers. This romance is complicated by Marlena's husband, August, the abusive animal trainer who beats both his wife and the animals Jacob takes care of. August is suspicious of their relationship and beats Marlena and Jacob. Soon after, Marlena leaves August. This is the pivotal event which leads to the ultimate downfall of the circus. Toward the end, several workers who had been thrown off the train previously, come back and release the animals causing a stampede during the performance. Amidst the panic and chaos, August is murdered. As a result of all of this taking place during a circus performance, the circus goes out of business. Marlena and Jacob, along with several circus animals, leave and begin their new life together. The story resolves itself with a violent but happy and optimistic ending.
The entire circus is a metaphor that describes the uneasy and often violent relationship between the ruling class and the poor lower class within society. The circus is a microcosm and represents the larger society's economic hardship and class war, portraying it on a personal level. The stampede of animals in the prologue paints a powerful picture of rebellion and revolution as the under class overthrows the sadistic and oppressive ruling class within the hierarchy of the circus. Jacob represents John Q Public, the blue collar working man in the throes of economic oppression. Uncle Al and August represent the upper class which abuses and exploits the working class. Locked within this circus's strict class system was a deep anger and resentment at injustice. The turmoil gathered steam until a backlash was unleashed and it manifested itself as pandemonium and violence. We don't have to go back to the time of the great depression to witness tension between the rich and the poor. In recent times, we have seen many riots in lower class and inner city neighborhoods. Rioting, robbing, looting, and violence are common methods of rebelling against the upper class and continue to plague our society in modern times.
The animals and the lowest class workers were pushed beyond the point of tolerance and resorted to murder and mayhem to bring down the hierarchy and the well-defined class structure of the circus. The whole circus system paralleled the division between the privileged and the destitute during the great depression and helps explain much of the unrest of the thirties as well as how movements like socialism and communism gained much more appeal during the 1930's than at any other time in our nation's history. I thought the novel portrayed these elements of the era in a very original and satirical fashion. The circus was structured in terms of economics, who got paid and when and how much. It functioned like a government, certain people made decisions, others couldn't. Certain people had a voice in those decisions, others didn't. One side had the power, the other side was expendable. In the end, morality and virtue prevail over greed and power, and that is the true message behind this story.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Primal Consumer
This week we watched The Hidden Persuaders, a documentary on the advertising industry. Two people from the video that caught my attention were Frank Lutz and Clotaire Rapaille. Being a small business owner myself, as well as a poet, I'm very interested in the emotional and psychological aspects of advertising and how they interrelate with words and phrases. I want to know what my customers want to hear and what they don't want to hear. I want to know what they want from me and what they want from my products and services. Most of all, I want to know what pulls their strings, and what will motivate them to buy my products.
Specifically I'd like to learn more about reptilian hot buttons and the language of advertising. In other words, which words to use, and which words not to use to appeal to customers and draw them in. Unfortunately I can't afford to be "on code", but the video gave me a basic framework for appealing to customers and communicating with their reptilian brains. I now understand that as a marketer, I need to appeal to people's basest vices. Hopefully I'll be able to find more detailed information about how to do so online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/main.html?pkg=2303&seg=1&mod=1
Specifically I'd like to learn more about reptilian hot buttons and the language of advertising. In other words, which words to use, and which words not to use to appeal to customers and draw them in. Unfortunately I can't afford to be "on code", but the video gave me a basic framework for appealing to customers and communicating with their reptilian brains. I now understand that as a marketer, I need to appeal to people's basest vices. Hopefully I'll be able to find more detailed information about how to do so online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/main.html?pkg=2303&seg=1&mod=1
Green Eggs and Spam
Should Schools remove controversial books from their libraries?
It's a very difficult question to answer. If the answer is yes, then how do you determine what should be removed and what shouldn't, and how do you justify the artistic, moral and constitutional infractions made against the authors of these books? If the answer is no, then how do you deal with the negative consequences of that decision?
In a practical society, there should be some sort of balance between the two sides. In my opinion, the ideal route would be to let the individual schools, school districts, and PTAs decide what should be removed and what shouldn't. Parents have the right to censor what their children are exposed to, and so it's perfectly alright to remove a certain book from a school library if the majority of parents feel it is the proper thing to do. After all, if a parent feels that their child should be allowed to read a controversial book, they can go to a real library and access it.
I'm usually strongly opposed to censorship because I am a highly controversial artist myself, but this is one case where I have compromised my beliefs for the sake of a greater right.
http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/
It's a very difficult question to answer. If the answer is yes, then how do you determine what should be removed and what shouldn't, and how do you justify the artistic, moral and constitutional infractions made against the authors of these books? If the answer is no, then how do you deal with the negative consequences of that decision?
In a practical society, there should be some sort of balance between the two sides. In my opinion, the ideal route would be to let the individual schools, school districts, and PTAs decide what should be removed and what shouldn't. Parents have the right to censor what their children are exposed to, and so it's perfectly alright to remove a certain book from a school library if the majority of parents feel it is the proper thing to do. After all, if a parent feels that their child should be allowed to read a controversial book, they can go to a real library and access it.
I'm usually strongly opposed to censorship because I am a highly controversial artist myself, but this is one case where I have compromised my beliefs for the sake of a greater right.
http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/
Don't Judge Me By My Lover
A large part of what condemns a book to stigmatization is the audience who's reading it. A perfect example would be Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. For American readers The Da Vinci Code is blasphemous and heretical. However, what many Americans fail to realize is that American Christianity is far removed from Christianity in its original form. Many texts have been watered down, sugar coated, filtered, altered, and in many cases completely left out of the bible altogether to suit American and western European ideals.
In a country like Ethiopia, The Da Vinci Code is merely reiterating beliefs that are thousands of years old. These are theologies that have been part of Ethiopia's doctrine since Christianity's inception. In Ethiopia, the views expressed by The Da Vinci Code represent the complete opposite of blasphemy and heresy. Either way, Banning a book for "inappropriate" religious convictions is ironic and moronic. We are not only promised freedom of speech by our constitution, but we are also promised freedom of religion.
I believe there are a few extreme cases where the government should be allowed to ban books. For example if a serial killer decides to publish a how to manual on how to rape and mutilate a victim, or if a terrorist decides to publish a how to manual for blowing up skyscrapers. Other than that, banning books is censorship, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15226&t=Ethiopia+celebrates+2000+years+of+Church
In a country like Ethiopia, The Da Vinci Code is merely reiterating beliefs that are thousands of years old. These are theologies that have been part of Ethiopia's doctrine since Christianity's inception. In Ethiopia, the views expressed by The Da Vinci Code represent the complete opposite of blasphemy and heresy. Either way, Banning a book for "inappropriate" religious convictions is ironic and moronic. We are not only promised freedom of speech by our constitution, but we are also promised freedom of religion.
I believe there are a few extreme cases where the government should be allowed to ban books. For example if a serial killer decides to publish a how to manual on how to rape and mutilate a victim, or if a terrorist decides to publish a how to manual for blowing up skyscrapers. Other than that, banning books is censorship, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15226&t=Ethiopia+celebrates+2000+years+of+Church
Friday, June 13, 2008
Gay Marriage Sucks Balls
Recently, California's supreme court overturned California's ban on gay marriage. This was a serious error made by the court, and one which will have many negative repercussions in the future.
What makes gay marriage wrong is the fact that it directly defies the morals and values upon which the ritual of marriage was originally created. Gay marriage defies the sanctity of marriage as a religious act because the bible clearly and strictly forbids homosexuality. It's like a polar bear living in the equator, or an ice cube in the refrigerator. It doesn't make sense, and is extremely ironic. It's literally contrary to what marriage was intended to be.
Another aspect which makes gay marriage questionable is its propensity to deteriorate the moral fabric of our society. If a man is by law allowed to marry another man, or a woman is by law allowed to marry another woman, then where do we draw the line? What's to stop our government from allowing a man or a woman to marry a horse, or a corpse, or a video game console? Homosexuality is a sexual deviation and abnormality, and should not be socially acceptable.
I believe every person has the right to do whatever they want to do as long as its free of malicious intent and doesn't harm themselves or anyone else. So if a consenting man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a consenting woman wants to have sex with another consenting woman, that's their business, and they have every right to do so. However, I also believe that it shouldn't be made legal or politically acceptable because homosexuality is a moral and religious abomination.
Though marriage has evolved into being more of a legal institution than a religious one, this is one case where church and state should not be separated. Marriage continues to remain a religious practice which abides by religious laws, and the state should not contradict those laws.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story
What makes gay marriage wrong is the fact that it directly defies the morals and values upon which the ritual of marriage was originally created. Gay marriage defies the sanctity of marriage as a religious act because the bible clearly and strictly forbids homosexuality. It's like a polar bear living in the equator, or an ice cube in the refrigerator. It doesn't make sense, and is extremely ironic. It's literally contrary to what marriage was intended to be.
Another aspect which makes gay marriage questionable is its propensity to deteriorate the moral fabric of our society. If a man is by law allowed to marry another man, or a woman is by law allowed to marry another woman, then where do we draw the line? What's to stop our government from allowing a man or a woman to marry a horse, or a corpse, or a video game console? Homosexuality is a sexual deviation and abnormality, and should not be socially acceptable.
I believe every person has the right to do whatever they want to do as long as its free of malicious intent and doesn't harm themselves or anyone else. So if a consenting man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a consenting woman wants to have sex with another consenting woman, that's their business, and they have every right to do so. However, I also believe that it shouldn't be made legal or politically acceptable because homosexuality is a moral and religious abomination.
Though marriage has evolved into being more of a legal institution than a religious one, this is one case where church and state should not be separated. Marriage continues to remain a religious practice which abides by religious laws, and the state should not contradict those laws.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story
History Repeats Itself
I just watched Good Night and Good Luck. Earlier films have dealt with the communist scare and America's anti soviet cold war sentiment. Good Night and Good Luck comes as a welcomed addition, and compares favorably with films such as The Front and the television movie Fear on Trial. Although on the surface Good Night and Good Luck appears to be a dated story about the cold war, it's actually a commentary on the role mass news media plays in shaping the public's perception and our political climate.
The parallels to our current political climate in this film are quite clear. The only difference is that today it's the middle east and terrorists, instead of communists, as well as homeland security and the patriot act instead of blacklists. We should also remember that Afghanistan was a major battle ground between the Soviet Union and the U.S. toward the end of the cold war, and many middle eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran relied on the Soviet union as their black market arms supplier. So our current problems in the middle east stem directly from the cold war and our past tensions with the former Soviet union.
I think Good Night and Good Luck's subject matter is actually more relevant today than it would have been in the 1950's. The reason is because our modern society is much more electronically equipped and media driven than it was in the 1950's. In the 1950's, television was just starting to develop a market. Back then, most average citizens didn't own a TV. They mainly relied on newspapers and radio to receive their news. Today, almost everyone has a TV, unless you're homeless or live in the woods. And even then, you still have access to television in public venues. In addition to television, we also have computers and the Internet, which boasts just as many users as television, if not more.
Murrow's formal speech, which begins and ends the film's story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and condemnation of the possibilities of television and media, and foretells the future with stark accuracy. It shows the influence of media and its ability to make a difference. If you're a politician, the media has the power to build you up or tear you down at will, and often poses a greater threat to our national security than the foreign "enemies" it reports on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R_Murrow
The parallels to our current political climate in this film are quite clear. The only difference is that today it's the middle east and terrorists, instead of communists, as well as homeland security and the patriot act instead of blacklists. We should also remember that Afghanistan was a major battle ground between the Soviet Union and the U.S. toward the end of the cold war, and many middle eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran relied on the Soviet union as their black market arms supplier. So our current problems in the middle east stem directly from the cold war and our past tensions with the former Soviet union.
I think Good Night and Good Luck's subject matter is actually more relevant today than it would have been in the 1950's. The reason is because our modern society is much more electronically equipped and media driven than it was in the 1950's. In the 1950's, television was just starting to develop a market. Back then, most average citizens didn't own a TV. They mainly relied on newspapers and radio to receive their news. Today, almost everyone has a TV, unless you're homeless or live in the woods. And even then, you still have access to television in public venues. In addition to television, we also have computers and the Internet, which boasts just as many users as television, if not more.
Murrow's formal speech, which begins and ends the film's story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and condemnation of the possibilities of television and media, and foretells the future with stark accuracy. It shows the influence of media and its ability to make a difference. If you're a politician, the media has the power to build you up or tear you down at will, and often poses a greater threat to our national security than the foreign "enemies" it reports on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R_Murrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)