I have sent a note to Ian MacLennan, Val Senyk and Ulrich Sikora about feeding me relevant information yearlong for what goes on with theatre events.
If they are willing, this information will be the content of a new blog. Then everyone can stay up to the minute informed about all the lovely things happening at Thorneloe.
Yeah!
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Google and Pictures
For the regulars, you will notice that I have added a picture of myself. Actually myself and a friend. The mysterious young lady is Holly, who worked with me at the track and Ami at Le Chateau.
Now, I just want to say that there was some rather silly runaround going on just to get that damned pic up there, and it doesn't even look that good. I shall have to replace it soon enough. I am not going to throw all the blame on the electronics. The picture was OK to start, but admittedly not magnificent. Still, I typically scan at about 300 dpi, and often much higher, so it isn't Just the pic.
Alright, I started with Photobucket, as they came recommended from someone on Xforums. Now, I expect in the name of efficiency and everyone getting a pic up, Photobucket will automatically resize a pic that is larger than 250 kb. I suppose that's fair enough, but keep in mind that my average photo file is roughly 4 Mb, 20 Mb is not uncommon and the occasional 100 Mb file shows up in the archives...
So anyways Photobucket automatically resizes to 250 puny kb and that's nice because it saves me the trouble. I hear it from a friend who runs a blog that this google-based Blogger will allow you to post pics of up to 250 kb size. One would begin to think that this meant to be. Seamless. Integrated.
Of course as previously mentioned, I am not sure that I want photos in my posts. Just a small square of my own mug so that accidental tourists to Simacia can see me. This needs to be edited in profile preferences, where there are special 'different' restrictions. For Instance: a 50kb picture size limit. !!
Now, some will say "just calm down Jay" and that's okay to say. It is Free after all. I started Photoshop and cropped and resized to 47.8 kb. Apparently it was still to big. 42 kb, still too big. 35 kb. Damn if it wasn't too frikkin' big! I have the item up there now and it weighs in as a welterweight 28 kb and change.
Now here's what I can't understand: Gmail is affording me 2.348+ Gb of email space (and counting) right now and given the 50 invites I have left (free invites for you luddites who don't use Gmail yet) I could theoretically get well over 100 Gb. I could then round up 9 people just like me and co-ordinate the first Tb of Gmail, but I digress!
How can it be that they cannot afford a little more space to be given to blogger and less to Gmail? How? I defy anyone to show me a Gmail box that has, in the nearly two years that it's been around, been filled to not receiving anymore. If you can show me this person, I can show you someone who Purposely asks for as much spam and crap as they can swallow in one gulp.
Well it doesn't matter too much. I still like blogger, even if Angelo says the rollover is too long. He writes more than I do, I expect. So does Root. So did Hemingway. I never claimed to be dedicated, just interested.
I do hope some change comes along, mind you. Now I am going to figure out the audio content...
Now, I just want to say that there was some rather silly runaround going on just to get that damned pic up there, and it doesn't even look that good. I shall have to replace it soon enough. I am not going to throw all the blame on the electronics. The picture was OK to start, but admittedly not magnificent. Still, I typically scan at about 300 dpi, and often much higher, so it isn't Just the pic.
Alright, I started with Photobucket, as they came recommended from someone on Xforums. Now, I expect in the name of efficiency and everyone getting a pic up, Photobucket will automatically resize a pic that is larger than 250 kb. I suppose that's fair enough, but keep in mind that my average photo file is roughly 4 Mb, 20 Mb is not uncommon and the occasional 100 Mb file shows up in the archives...
So anyways Photobucket automatically resizes to 250 puny kb and that's nice because it saves me the trouble. I hear it from a friend who runs a blog that this google-based Blogger will allow you to post pics of up to 250 kb size. One would begin to think that this meant to be. Seamless. Integrated.
Of course as previously mentioned, I am not sure that I want photos in my posts. Just a small square of my own mug so that accidental tourists to Simacia can see me. This needs to be edited in profile preferences, where there are special 'different' restrictions. For Instance: a 50kb picture size limit. !!
Now, some will say "just calm down Jay" and that's okay to say. It is Free after all. I started Photoshop and cropped and resized to 47.8 kb. Apparently it was still to big. 42 kb, still too big. 35 kb. Damn if it wasn't too frikkin' big! I have the item up there now and it weighs in as a welterweight 28 kb and change.
Now here's what I can't understand: Gmail is affording me 2.348+ Gb of email space (and counting) right now and given the 50 invites I have left (free invites for you luddites who don't use Gmail yet) I could theoretically get well over 100 Gb. I could then round up 9 people just like me and co-ordinate the first Tb of Gmail, but I digress!
How can it be that they cannot afford a little more space to be given to blogger and less to Gmail? How? I defy anyone to show me a Gmail box that has, in the nearly two years that it's been around, been filled to not receiving anymore. If you can show me this person, I can show you someone who Purposely asks for as much spam and crap as they can swallow in one gulp.
Well it doesn't matter too much. I still like blogger, even if Angelo says the rollover is too long. He writes more than I do, I expect. So does Root. So did Hemingway. I never claimed to be dedicated, just interested.
I do hope some change comes along, mind you. Now I am going to figure out the audio content...
Musing on my favourite film...
It's slightly convuluted, but it turned into an A grade essay...
Replicants, being biologically human, prove to be the superiors of regular humans in many ways. They are our physical superiors because they are better skilled and better suited to their skills. They are inherently more trainable. They are shown to be our mental superiors by dint of their specialization to assigned tasks. Many of their jobs demand tactical intelligence, which cannot be pre-programmed. They are even portrayed to be (arguably) our emotional superiors. Replicants are, in an ideal sense just what Tyrell claims in his slogan: “More human than human.”
Dominion, which is to say control of things, is a base tendency of the human condition. It is established and maintained through subversion and violence (or the threat thereof). It can be interpreted that the replicants do not seek dominion over anything except themselves*. To this end, replicants are more emotionally evolved than we are.
The question of whether we have dominion over our creations must be rephrased in the very special circumstances Ridley Scott’s reality. In our reality, there is no creation yet that can be said to be our superiors in the same way as replicants. What must be examined in Scott’s paradigm (and possibly soon enough in our world), is whether we are capable of establishing and maintaining dominion over our creations and if so, whether we should or not.
Clearly, controls can be built right in such creations. Incept dates are an example of these measures. More relevant to the issue is the very powerful psychological control created by inserting memories in a replicant’s mind. This mechanism is imperfect, though. The further pursuit of Tyrell’s solution turns into a vicious circle. The original problem of replicants developing emotion is buffered by giving them memories that establish an emotional safety net. To develop this, Tyrell would eventually have to better simulate experience and emotion. Eventually his creations would have full emotion, which was the problem to begin with. Dominion cannot be maintained this way.
Beyond being a deeply ingrained human trait, there is good reason to dominate such a creation. Obviously, a group of beings that are faster, stronger and smarter than their creators pose the logical risk of overrunning their creators. The original, weaker, group might in turn face enslavement or annihilation at the hands of the superior group, should the superiors turn their minds that way. The fear of this should be enough to motivate the weaker, creator group to consolidate their power over their creations. This fear must be tempered with a wariness that the common (and justified) reaction to such dominance is backlash in a measure to match the severity of the control endured. At this point one is forced to consider whether dominance should be considered or not. Fortunately, Scott hints at the answer.
There is a strong resemblance here to the classic conundrum of ‘the prisoner’s dilemma.’ – The prisoner’s Dilemma: Two parties are accused of a crime for which there is not enough evidence to make a full conviction. Both parties are separated and told that if they supply evidence against the other party (i.e. defect), they will be set free while the other party faces full conviction (to illustrate the point, let us say fifteen years in prison). If parties do not supply evidence (i.e. co-operate), the party is still going to be convicted, although for a much reduced term (let us say merely three years). By these standards and without being able to know what the other parties intentions are, the rational mind will always defect, as it is always in their best interests.
The rule ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ is a standard that humanity holds dear. Because of this golden rule, slavery is repugnant to the moral majority. Humanity as a species has spent hundreds of years trying to wipe out slavery. It would be hypocritical of us to about-face on the issue. Clearly, this rule stands in opposition to the rational mind coping with the prisoner’s dilemma.
The key to resolving these discrepancies lies in the interaction between the characters of Rick Deckard and Roy Batty, because it is there that one gleans the true intentions of differing parties considered from the ‘prisoners’ viewpoint.
These two key characters do not actually meet until late in the film. Deckard has already ‘retired’ Zora, Leon and Pris. He has also faced the fact that he cares for Rachel, who is herself a replicant. Until he met Rachel, ‘retirement’ of replicants did not bother him at all, as indicated by his statement “replicants are like any other machine, they’re either a benefit or a hazard; if they’re a benefit they’re not my problem.” Deckard has reason to contemplate how human he is when Rachel asks if he has ever taken the void-comp test himself. As his feelings for Rachel grow, however, he operates with less certainty except when focused by a life or death situation
.
Batty has watched the systematic killing of all his compatriots. He has also killed. He is operating under the influence of fear, frustration and the knowledge of his impending death. Batty does, however, have a very clear understanding of exactly what he is and what he’s about. By the time he meets up with Deckard, Batty is absolutely aware of certain events that are going to happen (this knowledge does not necessarily affect the dynamics of the prisoner model), namely that Deckard will not be capable of retiring Batty.
As one of the ‘prisoner’ parties, Deckard does not ‘co-operate’ but instead tries first to kill Batty, then simply to escape him. Batty, on the other hand, makes multiple attempts to establish co-operation. The first is when he breaks Deckard’s fingers so that Deckard cannot shoot straight. It was easy enough for Batty to kill the blade runner who had slaughtered his friends, but instead he took away the blade runner’s capacity to kill again. He then offers Deckard the chance to escape or literally walk away from the problems by counting to ten, like a child in a round of hide and seek. By this point, Batty is merely playing a game.
As Deckard continues to play the rational gambit from the ‘prisoner’s dilemma,’ he occasions to smash Batty about with a length of pipe. (Batty’s comment “That’s the spirit” is reflective of their common ground at this point, both refusing to give up when staring death in the face). Having had the pipe removed from his person, Deckard runs again. He is immediately confronted by a grinning Batty who proclaims “that wasn’t rational – not to mention unsportsmanlike.” This statement can be taken as a direct challenge to Deckard to learn to co-operate.
On the rooftop, as Deckard clings helplessly to an I-beam, Batty must decide between letting Deckard fall, making him fall or saving him from a fall. Here is the ultimate test of whether we can trust the machine. Scott’s direction has already suggested strongly that the need to dominate our creations is invalid, but at this point he turns hints into statement by portraying Batty as a Christfigure, a saviour. Batty is not vengeful and he is not ambitious.
The concept of dominion proves to be ineffective, outdated and overall destructive to our species when dealing with our own equals or superiors. By extrapolation, if our superiors can treat us with this kind of respect, there is no reason for us not to extend it to our inferiors. This would also be called compassion. The notion of slavery should be taken as even more offensive now than previously because humanity has supposedly learned better. There are clearly established moral and ethical reasons to avoid slavery.
Endnote: In recent times, Ridley Scott has decided to answer the ongoing debate of whether Deckard was himself a replicant, which is relevant to this discourse. According to Scott, Deckard is a replicant. It should be pointed out that this affects the argument presented here only on a deeper philosophic level. We must remember that Deckard cannot be aware that he is a replicant until he comes across the origami unicorn in his hall at the end of the film. Batty also has no means for knowing Deckard is a replicant. It is not for us to judge whether it was a stupid and over-reaching thing for Scott to do in making this statement, but it will change the nature of some debates over themes in the film. It is regrettable that the duality of human/replicant is removed from this character, as it limits the scope of contemplation.
*Although one may argue that the murder of Tyrell is an attempt to establish dominion over his creator, Roy Batty was actually acting out of frustration and fear for the loss of his life, not as a form of retribution. The slaughter of others, bears the same emotional hallmarks with a purely teleological intent. An honest look at humans shows that they kill for much less.
Replicants, being biologically human, prove to be the superiors of regular humans in many ways. They are our physical superiors because they are better skilled and better suited to their skills. They are inherently more trainable. They are shown to be our mental superiors by dint of their specialization to assigned tasks. Many of their jobs demand tactical intelligence, which cannot be pre-programmed. They are even portrayed to be (arguably) our emotional superiors. Replicants are, in an ideal sense just what Tyrell claims in his slogan: “More human than human.”
Dominion, which is to say control of things, is a base tendency of the human condition. It is established and maintained through subversion and violence (or the threat thereof). It can be interpreted that the replicants do not seek dominion over anything except themselves*. To this end, replicants are more emotionally evolved than we are.
The question of whether we have dominion over our creations must be rephrased in the very special circumstances Ridley Scott’s reality. In our reality, there is no creation yet that can be said to be our superiors in the same way as replicants. What must be examined in Scott’s paradigm (and possibly soon enough in our world), is whether we are capable of establishing and maintaining dominion over our creations and if so, whether we should or not.
Clearly, controls can be built right in such creations. Incept dates are an example of these measures. More relevant to the issue is the very powerful psychological control created by inserting memories in a replicant’s mind. This mechanism is imperfect, though. The further pursuit of Tyrell’s solution turns into a vicious circle. The original problem of replicants developing emotion is buffered by giving them memories that establish an emotional safety net. To develop this, Tyrell would eventually have to better simulate experience and emotion. Eventually his creations would have full emotion, which was the problem to begin with. Dominion cannot be maintained this way.
Beyond being a deeply ingrained human trait, there is good reason to dominate such a creation. Obviously, a group of beings that are faster, stronger and smarter than their creators pose the logical risk of overrunning their creators. The original, weaker, group might in turn face enslavement or annihilation at the hands of the superior group, should the superiors turn their minds that way. The fear of this should be enough to motivate the weaker, creator group to consolidate their power over their creations. This fear must be tempered with a wariness that the common (and justified) reaction to such dominance is backlash in a measure to match the severity of the control endured. At this point one is forced to consider whether dominance should be considered or not. Fortunately, Scott hints at the answer.
There is a strong resemblance here to the classic conundrum of ‘the prisoner’s dilemma.’ – The prisoner’s Dilemma: Two parties are accused of a crime for which there is not enough evidence to make a full conviction. Both parties are separated and told that if they supply evidence against the other party (i.e. defect), they will be set free while the other party faces full conviction (to illustrate the point, let us say fifteen years in prison). If parties do not supply evidence (i.e. co-operate), the party is still going to be convicted, although for a much reduced term (let us say merely three years). By these standards and without being able to know what the other parties intentions are, the rational mind will always defect, as it is always in their best interests.
The rule ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ is a standard that humanity holds dear. Because of this golden rule, slavery is repugnant to the moral majority. Humanity as a species has spent hundreds of years trying to wipe out slavery. It would be hypocritical of us to about-face on the issue. Clearly, this rule stands in opposition to the rational mind coping with the prisoner’s dilemma.
The key to resolving these discrepancies lies in the interaction between the characters of Rick Deckard and Roy Batty, because it is there that one gleans the true intentions of differing parties considered from the ‘prisoners’ viewpoint.
These two key characters do not actually meet until late in the film. Deckard has already ‘retired’ Zora, Leon and Pris. He has also faced the fact that he cares for Rachel, who is herself a replicant. Until he met Rachel, ‘retirement’ of replicants did not bother him at all, as indicated by his statement “replicants are like any other machine, they’re either a benefit or a hazard; if they’re a benefit they’re not my problem.” Deckard has reason to contemplate how human he is when Rachel asks if he has ever taken the void-comp test himself. As his feelings for Rachel grow, however, he operates with less certainty except when focused by a life or death situation
.
Batty has watched the systematic killing of all his compatriots. He has also killed. He is operating under the influence of fear, frustration and the knowledge of his impending death. Batty does, however, have a very clear understanding of exactly what he is and what he’s about. By the time he meets up with Deckard, Batty is absolutely aware of certain events that are going to happen (this knowledge does not necessarily affect the dynamics of the prisoner model), namely that Deckard will not be capable of retiring Batty.
As one of the ‘prisoner’ parties, Deckard does not ‘co-operate’ but instead tries first to kill Batty, then simply to escape him. Batty, on the other hand, makes multiple attempts to establish co-operation. The first is when he breaks Deckard’s fingers so that Deckard cannot shoot straight. It was easy enough for Batty to kill the blade runner who had slaughtered his friends, but instead he took away the blade runner’s capacity to kill again. He then offers Deckard the chance to escape or literally walk away from the problems by counting to ten, like a child in a round of hide and seek. By this point, Batty is merely playing a game.
As Deckard continues to play the rational gambit from the ‘prisoner’s dilemma,’ he occasions to smash Batty about with a length of pipe. (Batty’s comment “That’s the spirit” is reflective of their common ground at this point, both refusing to give up when staring death in the face). Having had the pipe removed from his person, Deckard runs again. He is immediately confronted by a grinning Batty who proclaims “that wasn’t rational – not to mention unsportsmanlike.” This statement can be taken as a direct challenge to Deckard to learn to co-operate.
On the rooftop, as Deckard clings helplessly to an I-beam, Batty must decide between letting Deckard fall, making him fall or saving him from a fall. Here is the ultimate test of whether we can trust the machine. Scott’s direction has already suggested strongly that the need to dominate our creations is invalid, but at this point he turns hints into statement by portraying Batty as a Christfigure, a saviour. Batty is not vengeful and he is not ambitious.
The concept of dominion proves to be ineffective, outdated and overall destructive to our species when dealing with our own equals or superiors. By extrapolation, if our superiors can treat us with this kind of respect, there is no reason for us not to extend it to our inferiors. This would also be called compassion. The notion of slavery should be taken as even more offensive now than previously because humanity has supposedly learned better. There are clearly established moral and ethical reasons to avoid slavery.
Endnote: In recent times, Ridley Scott has decided to answer the ongoing debate of whether Deckard was himself a replicant, which is relevant to this discourse. According to Scott, Deckard is a replicant. It should be pointed out that this affects the argument presented here only on a deeper philosophic level. We must remember that Deckard cannot be aware that he is a replicant until he comes across the origami unicorn in his hall at the end of the film. Batty also has no means for knowing Deckard is a replicant. It is not for us to judge whether it was a stupid and over-reaching thing for Scott to do in making this statement, but it will change the nature of some debates over themes in the film. It is regrettable that the duality of human/replicant is removed from this character, as it limits the scope of contemplation.
*Although one may argue that the murder of Tyrell is an attempt to establish dominion over his creator, Roy Batty was actually acting out of frustration and fear for the loss of his life, not as a form of retribution. The slaughter of others, bears the same emotional hallmarks with a purely teleological intent. An honest look at humans shows that they kill for much less.
Monday, June 27, 2005
some short musing on tech and deity
Since before the dawn of history, mankind has been using technology. Things like fire, the wheel and flint tipped spears have all served to preserve humanity and ease humanity’s burdens. As a species, Homo Sapiens has created technology far beyond that used by any other species. The species has evolved to be inextricably linked to its technology. For good or bad, Homo Sapiens has also become dependent on the technology it has created.
Christianity is the dominant religion of the West. It offers spiritual guidance for people - in part by offering a template for understanding how to deal with moral/ethical dilemmas in life. The central teaching of this faith is contained in The Bible, which is taken by the devout to represent the literal words of God. There do exist many writings by Christian scholars, however it is important to remember that these are interpretations and extrapolations. The scholarly writings are subordinate to The Bible.
The rise of Christianity began over two thousand years ago in an age of relatively primitve technology. The implications of a given piece of technology from this era were fairly easy to assess and understand. The touchstone, for example, allowed people to verify the nature of a basic currency of the time by identifying a metal as gold. In so doing, the touchstone can be said to have facilitated commerce by keeping traders from producing counterfeit currency.
The moral/ethical concerns of the time were less complex as well. Again in the case of the touchstone, the lesson was that trade is an important aspect of interpersonal conduct. It keeps us socialized and tells us that there will be enough for everyone, we did not need to destroy each other. It would not be acceptable then, to defraud people when trading. Ethically, the touchstone symbolized honesty.
one hundred and fity years ago, it was inconceivable that a person would stand on the moon. Thirty six years ago it happened. We have super-developed our technology. We have been capable of doing this because technology has always been of a human realm.
In the Christian tradition, the development of ethical and moral constructs are based in the divine realm. In order to keep up with our fantastic advances in technology, Christian ethical stances must be interpreted and extrapolated from the base source, The Bible. The problem is that it would be impossible for The Bible to guess what issues might be cropping up at this late stage.
Mankind is inherently moralistic / ethical. It is necessary to use this trait to consider our technology. To rely on ever more nebulous guides is certainly a hindrance, if not an out and out danger to humanity. Humanity has reached a point in its developmental potential where it is essential to relieve God of the burden of the consequence of our actions. It is time for Homo Sapiens to take up the responsability. Mankind needs its own moral / ethical code to ensure the intelligent, effective preservation of the species.
This would be a gigantic project which would demand much human resource. The effects of such an undertaking would be far-reaching and transformational for society. Consider some of the excellent implications that such an undertaking would beget:
Essentially, society would experience an ethical / moral renaissance. Basic moral / ethical constructs from Christianity are commonly understood, however they have become so repetitive that large sections of society do not feel they need to contemplate them. It would be fair to say that society is mentally complacent. The building of a new morality is a powerfully thought-provoking endeavour. Since it’s influence would have such a broad scope, nearly everyone would have to take part in the dialogue. In a culture where so many people turn to escapism (television, internet, sport, etc...) to avoid thinking, this would be a major benefit.
There are no laws that move individuals to practice any form of spirituality. It is not the type of thing that should be legislated. However, as a society drifts away from it’s spiritual centre, the quality of life, its vibrancy and meaning, fade. Many that don’t have any sense of spirituality at the moment will have a chance to learn and grow as the process of creating a new ethical code continues. Boosting quality of life is something that nations strive for already; this would provide a unique opportunity.
Moreover, the realm of human consciousness will be expanded by pursuing a new concept of right and wrong. This is a goal that governments, corporations, schools and hippies everywhere chase on a day to to day basis. It is in our nature and best interests to expand our consciousness as a species. The technological upshot of this would be a chance to focus on the uses and purposes of the things we make.
There is a tendency in the West to ‘pass the buck.’ When the option arises to dodge, instead of taking responsibility for something gone wrong, it is a common fault to point a finger. The deeply ingrained need for self-defense when one does make a mistake is well facilitated when one has an omnipotent being on their side.
The consistent reinforcement of the notion that God has a predetermined plan or design for everyone (which stands in contrast to the notion of free will), often leads many to the conclusion that they don’t have to answer for their actions. Clearly, if one does not have to answer for their actions, they are prone to putting much less consideration into them.
By admitting our own culpability - by taking ethics into our own hands we acknowledge that we must be responsible for our actions. Each action we take will be more cautiously weighed before it is executed. In relation to technology, this would manifest by the immeditiate discontinuation of use of many technologies in favour of more intelligent choices (for example, perhaps only hybrid automobiles would be produced from here on). Other technologies would be used less often (paper consumption may be seriously reduced).
Taking into account a new way of thinking about what we currently use and how we use it, along with what we should make and how it should be made, leads to the idea that we must know where we want to go with all this in the future.
In the late 1970s Japanese and American corporate cultures became closer with each other. The Japanese wanted access to American markets. The Americans were eager to see what kind of influences could make Japan such an economic powerhouse, considering that three decades earlier Japan was a third world nation. In comparing business plans, the Japanese were shocked to find that American businesses planned a mere fifteen or twenty years into the future. The Americans were equally shocked to discover that Japanese business tends to plan ahead a few generations. The West was unprepared to have to play catch-up, but it did acknowledge the utility of its oriental counterpart’s philosophy.
The ability for society to chart its future will be well founded by this shift in paradigm. With any luck, one of the first applications of this advantage - technologically - will be to refine and groom media and information into an efficient and elegant system, instead of simply letting it all accumulate like so much trash on our sidewalks.
The best part is that all this - the change in thought, the comprehension of our situation and the determination of times to come - will be centred on a conscientious and humanistic outlook that prioritizes people over the technology that we have become dependent on
Christianity is the dominant religion of the West. It offers spiritual guidance for people - in part by offering a template for understanding how to deal with moral/ethical dilemmas in life. The central teaching of this faith is contained in The Bible, which is taken by the devout to represent the literal words of God. There do exist many writings by Christian scholars, however it is important to remember that these are interpretations and extrapolations. The scholarly writings are subordinate to The Bible.
The rise of Christianity began over two thousand years ago in an age of relatively primitve technology. The implications of a given piece of technology from this era were fairly easy to assess and understand. The touchstone, for example, allowed people to verify the nature of a basic currency of the time by identifying a metal as gold. In so doing, the touchstone can be said to have facilitated commerce by keeping traders from producing counterfeit currency.
The moral/ethical concerns of the time were less complex as well. Again in the case of the touchstone, the lesson was that trade is an important aspect of interpersonal conduct. It keeps us socialized and tells us that there will be enough for everyone, we did not need to destroy each other. It would not be acceptable then, to defraud people when trading. Ethically, the touchstone symbolized honesty.
one hundred and fity years ago, it was inconceivable that a person would stand on the moon. Thirty six years ago it happened. We have super-developed our technology. We have been capable of doing this because technology has always been of a human realm.
In the Christian tradition, the development of ethical and moral constructs are based in the divine realm. In order to keep up with our fantastic advances in technology, Christian ethical stances must be interpreted and extrapolated from the base source, The Bible. The problem is that it would be impossible for The Bible to guess what issues might be cropping up at this late stage.
Mankind is inherently moralistic / ethical. It is necessary to use this trait to consider our technology. To rely on ever more nebulous guides is certainly a hindrance, if not an out and out danger to humanity. Humanity has reached a point in its developmental potential where it is essential to relieve God of the burden of the consequence of our actions. It is time for Homo Sapiens to take up the responsability. Mankind needs its own moral / ethical code to ensure the intelligent, effective preservation of the species.
This would be a gigantic project which would demand much human resource. The effects of such an undertaking would be far-reaching and transformational for society. Consider some of the excellent implications that such an undertaking would beget:
Essentially, society would experience an ethical / moral renaissance. Basic moral / ethical constructs from Christianity are commonly understood, however they have become so repetitive that large sections of society do not feel they need to contemplate them. It would be fair to say that society is mentally complacent. The building of a new morality is a powerfully thought-provoking endeavour. Since it’s influence would have such a broad scope, nearly everyone would have to take part in the dialogue. In a culture where so many people turn to escapism (television, internet, sport, etc...) to avoid thinking, this would be a major benefit.
There are no laws that move individuals to practice any form of spirituality. It is not the type of thing that should be legislated. However, as a society drifts away from it’s spiritual centre, the quality of life, its vibrancy and meaning, fade. Many that don’t have any sense of spirituality at the moment will have a chance to learn and grow as the process of creating a new ethical code continues. Boosting quality of life is something that nations strive for already; this would provide a unique opportunity.
Moreover, the realm of human consciousness will be expanded by pursuing a new concept of right and wrong. This is a goal that governments, corporations, schools and hippies everywhere chase on a day to to day basis. It is in our nature and best interests to expand our consciousness as a species. The technological upshot of this would be a chance to focus on the uses and purposes of the things we make.
There is a tendency in the West to ‘pass the buck.’ When the option arises to dodge, instead of taking responsibility for something gone wrong, it is a common fault to point a finger. The deeply ingrained need for self-defense when one does make a mistake is well facilitated when one has an omnipotent being on their side.
The consistent reinforcement of the notion that God has a predetermined plan or design for everyone (which stands in contrast to the notion of free will), often leads many to the conclusion that they don’t have to answer for their actions. Clearly, if one does not have to answer for their actions, they are prone to putting much less consideration into them.
By admitting our own culpability - by taking ethics into our own hands we acknowledge that we must be responsible for our actions. Each action we take will be more cautiously weighed before it is executed. In relation to technology, this would manifest by the immeditiate discontinuation of use of many technologies in favour of more intelligent choices (for example, perhaps only hybrid automobiles would be produced from here on). Other technologies would be used less often (paper consumption may be seriously reduced).
Taking into account a new way of thinking about what we currently use and how we use it, along with what we should make and how it should be made, leads to the idea that we must know where we want to go with all this in the future.
In the late 1970s Japanese and American corporate cultures became closer with each other. The Japanese wanted access to American markets. The Americans were eager to see what kind of influences could make Japan such an economic powerhouse, considering that three decades earlier Japan was a third world nation. In comparing business plans, the Japanese were shocked to find that American businesses planned a mere fifteen or twenty years into the future. The Americans were equally shocked to discover that Japanese business tends to plan ahead a few generations. The West was unprepared to have to play catch-up, but it did acknowledge the utility of its oriental counterpart’s philosophy.
The ability for society to chart its future will be well founded by this shift in paradigm. With any luck, one of the first applications of this advantage - technologically - will be to refine and groom media and information into an efficient and elegant system, instead of simply letting it all accumulate like so much trash on our sidewalks.
The best part is that all this - the change in thought, the comprehension of our situation and the determination of times to come - will be centred on a conscientious and humanistic outlook that prioritizes people over the technology that we have become dependent on
Friday, June 24, 2005
very very sneaky...
My friends Sheldon and Janet are a pair of sneaky beans! Wonderfully sneaky, prank-prone, giggling and good-natured people, these two. It seems that I run into them, as if by providence, when I am getting too serious about life and need a good reminding to have some fun.
I love practical hilarites. It is appropriate then to recount recent and ongoing plots, as I remember them. In trying to keep things under one thematic umbrella, you will always know when I am recounting one of these amusing tales by the title of "very very sneaky." Yes, I boosted that from an Adam Sandler film, one of the best parts of Any Adam Sandler film.
Here is a quick example of one, before I sign off again:
Virginia and I are driving along and decided (I believe) that we should play Gladius, we being game people and whatnot. The game itself was at our most excellent friend Peter's and Sandra's house. Luckily Virg had a key to their place - luckily, because nobody was home.
In we go to find Gladius, but there's a problem. Hurricane Chaos had struck a day or two earlier and we could not for the life of us find Gladius. What I Could find was the plates and bowls that Pete and Sandra so lovingly use to serve their dinners on. I took the stack of dishes and placed them in the microwave. Virg, being sharp as a tack and quicker on the uptake than a paper kite caught in windshear, began effecting her own disruptions. I tacked sticky notes up in all the cupboards that I had rearranged.
We were set to move the pet rats, too. In the end we decided it was better not to, as it is unfair, unethical, unCanadian, underhanded, undeserving, untoward! to willngly bring civilians into the fray. Besides, the rats are cute.
As I remember, there was a fair arrangement of footwear in the closet too. All feet were used together for modern art. And then there was the Oh Henry! bar... hehehe ahem. Never mind the Oh Henry! bar, you're too young. Well. As we are making to leave, the buzzer goes off and we realize that they have seen Virg's car in the lot and we have been made. We locked up and ran down the back steps in the hopes that they would just go in, thus allowing us to drive away unseen and therefore unidentified.
It was not to be. We were caught by the ever diligent brother, Chris. nevertheless, it was a bit of mindless fun. Pete said it took a few days (two?) to find some of the dishes...
probably that sounds stupid,
I love practical hilarites. It is appropriate then to recount recent and ongoing plots, as I remember them. In trying to keep things under one thematic umbrella, you will always know when I am recounting one of these amusing tales by the title of "very very sneaky." Yes, I boosted that from an Adam Sandler film, one of the best parts of Any Adam Sandler film.
Here is a quick example of one, before I sign off again:
Virginia and I are driving along and decided (I believe) that we should play Gladius, we being game people and whatnot. The game itself was at our most excellent friend Peter's and Sandra's house. Luckily Virg had a key to their place - luckily, because nobody was home.
In we go to find Gladius, but there's a problem. Hurricane Chaos had struck a day or two earlier and we could not for the life of us find Gladius. What I Could find was the plates and bowls that Pete and Sandra so lovingly use to serve their dinners on. I took the stack of dishes and placed them in the microwave. Virg, being sharp as a tack and quicker on the uptake than a paper kite caught in windshear, began effecting her own disruptions. I tacked sticky notes up in all the cupboards that I had rearranged.
We were set to move the pet rats, too. In the end we decided it was better not to, as it is unfair, unethical, unCanadian, underhanded, undeserving, untoward! to willngly bring civilians into the fray. Besides, the rats are cute.
As I remember, there was a fair arrangement of footwear in the closet too. All feet were used together for modern art. And then there was the Oh Henry! bar... hehehe ahem. Never mind the Oh Henry! bar, you're too young. Well. As we are making to leave, the buzzer goes off and we realize that they have seen Virg's car in the lot and we have been made. We locked up and ran down the back steps in the hopes that they would just go in, thus allowing us to drive away unseen and therefore unidentified.
It was not to be. We were caught by the ever diligent brother, Chris. nevertheless, it was a bit of mindless fun. Pete said it took a few days (two?) to find some of the dishes...
probably that sounds stupid,
Later Later Later
Let's face it, friends. Later Sucks. Always and Eternally later does anyway. Later, when a plan actually does come to fruition, is just fine in my book! It's the pause that refreshes. A little delay not only piques one's interest, but makes the endgame so much nicer.
Now, there are tons of Laters happening for me right now. The most poignant example being these words I am putting to page for you all right now. The problem is that I can be impatient sometimes. I am distractable to be sure *leaves keyboard to make coffee*
*wanders back 2 hours later to discover half typed message...* oh...
At any rate. Those of you who know me might well be thinking, "oh this is Jay just ranting his negativity out of his system again." If you Really knew me well you might then think "ZZOOOOOOOOooMm!" hehehe. I digress.
No, this is supposed to be a positive thing. It is just a note to remind us all of something important. When life hands you Later after Later, stick to it. You wouldn't have started if it weren't worth it. It Will be worth it and you gotta believe that you will get there at Some point.
And therein lies one of the secrets to my daily survival and sanity. It prevents me from being stupid about things and god knows I can be stupid sometimes - like that time at the Radisson with the tools the plumber left out, the rusted water main and the 300 betas left on display at the fish convention in convention room C... HoHoHoHoHo! Those were the days, eh Nigel?
I am in fact writing this right now, to reinforce the belief. Unattainable Laters must be changed to attainable Laters. Attainable Laters must be... :) I don't know. They must be, that's enough.
I am going to turn the attainable Later of lunch into the imminent reality of lunch.
Now, there are tons of Laters happening for me right now. The most poignant example being these words I am putting to page for you all right now. The problem is that I can be impatient sometimes. I am distractable to be sure *leaves keyboard to make coffee*
*wanders back 2 hours later to discover half typed message...* oh...
At any rate. Those of you who know me might well be thinking, "oh this is Jay just ranting his negativity out of his system again." If you Really knew me well you might then think "ZZOOOOOOOOooMm!" hehehe. I digress.
No, this is supposed to be a positive thing. It is just a note to remind us all of something important. When life hands you Later after Later, stick to it. You wouldn't have started if it weren't worth it. It Will be worth it and you gotta believe that you will get there at Some point.
And therein lies one of the secrets to my daily survival and sanity. It prevents me from being stupid about things and god knows I can be stupid sometimes - like that time at the Radisson with the tools the plumber left out, the rusted water main and the 300 betas left on display at the fish convention in convention room C... HoHoHoHoHo! Those were the days, eh Nigel?
I am in fact writing this right now, to reinforce the belief. Unattainable Laters must be changed to attainable Laters. Attainable Laters must be... :) I don't know. They must be, that's enough.
I am going to turn the attainable Later of lunch into the imminent reality of lunch.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Send the specs...
Angelo; Ima link to your blog from this very special right-side coloumn on my own blog. Just tell me where to link to.
See? This is what it's about. Sittin' back. Chillin' out. Expanding your circle.
See? This is what it's about. Sittin' back. Chillin' out. Expanding your circle.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The last one of these I will ever do.
Excepting Special circumstances. Very Special.
Because this is a nearly permanent record of these, not an email that you will delete and forget later, I will do one more. After all, Luke said steal this. Here goes:
1. If you woke up tomorrow morning and you were the opposite gender, what would be the first thing you'd do?
I've been saving a pound of hashish for just such an event. I would lock the door and not be seen for a month and a half. Then I would go to Zig's!
2. If you could be invisible for a whole day, what would you do?
I'm not above saying it; I'd bloody well steal enough money to pay off OSAP, more if I could.
3. If you could completely get rid of one fashion trend that you personally don't like, what would it be?
Not exactly a Trend, but I would wipe Speedos from the face of the Earth! (You're welcome).
4. If you could dye your hair ANY colour, what colour would you choose?
Pish Posh. Let's see, to date I have Already worn my hair in so many colours. This encompasses Black with blue, red, purple and true black casts, Blue (dark, electric and a sort of powdery blue), Purple (dark), Red (various metallic casts as well as fire engine), Copper (a failed mix of amber and red), Blonde in varying degrees (doesn't suit me), Nearly every shade of Brown available on the market, Orange, White, Green (bright, it worked with my skin tone but it was a one weekend deal), I suppose the only thing left is a nice silver like me gran'father had, but I can wait for that. I suppose further that if I could have Natalie Portman's body (see Question one), then I would temporarily opt for bright pink ala her role in Closer. No excitement on this one...
5. If you could look like any celebrity, who would you choose and why?
Natalie Portman! (see end of question 4)! No, really? Am I not a celeb yet? Maybe Jude Law, the ladies seem to swoon for him.
6. If you could spend one hour with ANYONE, (alive or dead) who would it be, and why?
You. You're awesome.
7. If you won a million dollars in the lottery, what would you do with the money?
Pay off all loans. Dad gets that car he always wanted and travels with me for a month leading up to us going to World Cup for as long as we are both here to do it, Jenny (my sister) gets a house, My mother I would send to Uni where she truly belongs. The rest would go to my dreams, the boat or most likely a club in Halifax run by myself and Jenny (Hazelton), staffed by our nearest and dearest.
8. If you could tell one person ANYTHING, what would it be, and who would it be?
To whoever I wronged the Most: "I'm sorry."
9. If you saw your favourite celebrity in the street, what would be your first reaction?
"Hey! I have an hour free, let's get some coffee."
10. If you could change your first name to anything you wanted, what would you change it to?
JTLG? - Which is Not shorthand for jetlag.
11. What's oe feature of your appearance that you absolutely like?
my.... ...legs? I used to Hate my nose, verily a beak that can rend metal. Need a can opened? I like it plenty now. Oh! my eyes. Actually eyes are love / hate; they betray me you see?
12. If you were told today that you had only a month to live, what would be all the things you would do, or say before you died?
Drink life down unceasingly and relentlessly from the moment I found out, to the final forced breath... Notify my creditors that they are Screwed! hehehe
13. If you could change any part of your appearance, what would it be?
My nails. or lose the layer of insulation around the midriff. Or maybe add one inch... (^_^)
14. If you had your own line of cosmetics, what would you call it, and what kind of products would you make?
No. Nope, there's just not enough space here to tell you, but I know that the very first person I would bring on for help is Renée in Hamilton, because she's awesome and knows her shit!
15. If you had your own line of underwear, how would you design it?
See, it wouldn't be just one line, now would it? For men, boxer briefs, mainly. For women, a hundred different styles ranging from boxers to serious thong. Lace, silk, spandex, cotton, flannel, absolutely no linen! No Tassles, dammit!
16. If you could have one super power, what would it be?
If I were faced with actually getting the power for real, I suppose all the people who answer this would too. Knowing that there are so many superpowers suddenly doled out, I think I would have to choose Rogue's ability to gain by touch those powers of another for a limited time. I'm a little opportunist for saying so, eh?
17. If you had the choice would you rather be Marilyn Monroe for a day,or Madonna?
In backlash to Luke's response: You Suck! Madonna! Just to make a point. Whoever said Maridonna had a good idea, but I would twist it to Maradona, cuz of that whole hand of God thing...
18. Do you believe your dreams have significance?
Some do, certainly. Most do not.
19. Total number of films I own on DVD/video --
On DVD, I own no more than 6 films I think. Two of those I made myself. On VCD I have at least a half dozen. Other digital formats another half dozen. and 3 or 4 burned to the drive.
20. The last film I bought
Been a while... ...Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla I believe. That, or Josie and the Pussycats. Laugh if you will, that film is hilarious and ooohhhh that Rachel Leigh Cook!
21. Last film I watched at home -
Shaolin Soccer. If one third of a film counts, then it is Dagon.
22. Six films I watch a lot or mean a lot to me
Blade Runner. Number One. I have loved this film since I first saw it and it keeps getting more and more relevant.
Lost In Translation. I still haven't identified why I feel so connected to it. I cannot breathe without this film.
Hudsucker Proxy, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Dr. Strangelove. Wickedly funny work.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I love mythic Kung-Fu.
Classic Zombie or Monster films. Give up the artsy shit once in a while. Turn off and detune a little.
Maltese Falcon. My favourite of the films from yesteryear, it stands for a whole group of films that I liked.
- Sorry, Audrey. I do love you, if the list were longer Breakfast at Tiffanys would be a given.
23. Tag 5 people and have them answer these questions on their blog
Yeh well, I may occasionally write one of these out, but I just Don't forward this stuff. Copy / Paste, my friends, if you are so inclined.
Because this is a nearly permanent record of these, not an email that you will delete and forget later, I will do one more. After all, Luke said steal this. Here goes:
1. If you woke up tomorrow morning and you were the opposite gender, what would be the first thing you'd do?
I've been saving a pound of hashish for just such an event. I would lock the door and not be seen for a month and a half. Then I would go to Zig's!
2. If you could be invisible for a whole day, what would you do?
I'm not above saying it; I'd bloody well steal enough money to pay off OSAP, more if I could.
3. If you could completely get rid of one fashion trend that you personally don't like, what would it be?
Not exactly a Trend, but I would wipe Speedos from the face of the Earth! (You're welcome).
4. If you could dye your hair ANY colour, what colour would you choose?
Pish Posh. Let's see, to date I have Already worn my hair in so many colours. This encompasses Black with blue, red, purple and true black casts, Blue (dark, electric and a sort of powdery blue), Purple (dark), Red (various metallic casts as well as fire engine), Copper (a failed mix of amber and red), Blonde in varying degrees (doesn't suit me), Nearly every shade of Brown available on the market, Orange, White, Green (bright, it worked with my skin tone but it was a one weekend deal), I suppose the only thing left is a nice silver like me gran'father had, but I can wait for that. I suppose further that if I could have Natalie Portman's body (see Question one), then I would temporarily opt for bright pink ala her role in Closer. No excitement on this one...
5. If you could look like any celebrity, who would you choose and why?
Natalie Portman! (see end of question 4)! No, really? Am I not a celeb yet? Maybe Jude Law, the ladies seem to swoon for him.
6. If you could spend one hour with ANYONE, (alive or dead) who would it be, and why?
You. You're awesome.
7. If you won a million dollars in the lottery, what would you do with the money?
Pay off all loans. Dad gets that car he always wanted and travels with me for a month leading up to us going to World Cup for as long as we are both here to do it, Jenny (my sister) gets a house, My mother I would send to Uni where she truly belongs. The rest would go to my dreams, the boat or most likely a club in Halifax run by myself and Jenny (Hazelton), staffed by our nearest and dearest.
8. If you could tell one person ANYTHING, what would it be, and who would it be?
To whoever I wronged the Most: "I'm sorry."
9. If you saw your favourite celebrity in the street, what would be your first reaction?
"Hey! I have an hour free, let's get some coffee."
10. If you could change your first name to anything you wanted, what would you change it to?
JTLG? - Which is Not shorthand for jetlag.
11. What's oe feature of your appearance that you absolutely like?
my.... ...legs? I used to Hate my nose, verily a beak that can rend metal. Need a can opened? I like it plenty now. Oh! my eyes. Actually eyes are love / hate; they betray me you see?
12. If you were told today that you had only a month to live, what would be all the things you would do, or say before you died?
Drink life down unceasingly and relentlessly from the moment I found out, to the final forced breath... Notify my creditors that they are Screwed! hehehe
13. If you could change any part of your appearance, what would it be?
My nails. or lose the layer of insulation around the midriff. Or maybe add one inch... (^_^)
14. If you had your own line of cosmetics, what would you call it, and what kind of products would you make?
No. Nope, there's just not enough space here to tell you, but I know that the very first person I would bring on for help is Renée in Hamilton, because she's awesome and knows her shit!
15. If you had your own line of underwear, how would you design it?
See, it wouldn't be just one line, now would it? For men, boxer briefs, mainly. For women, a hundred different styles ranging from boxers to serious thong. Lace, silk, spandex, cotton, flannel, absolutely no linen! No Tassles, dammit!
16. If you could have one super power, what would it be?
If I were faced with actually getting the power for real, I suppose all the people who answer this would too. Knowing that there are so many superpowers suddenly doled out, I think I would have to choose Rogue's ability to gain by touch those powers of another for a limited time. I'm a little opportunist for saying so, eh?
17. If you had the choice would you rather be Marilyn Monroe for a day,or Madonna?
In backlash to Luke's response: You Suck! Madonna! Just to make a point. Whoever said Maridonna had a good idea, but I would twist it to Maradona, cuz of that whole hand of God thing...
18. Do you believe your dreams have significance?
Some do, certainly. Most do not.
19. Total number of films I own on DVD/video --
On DVD, I own no more than 6 films I think. Two of those I made myself. On VCD I have at least a half dozen. Other digital formats another half dozen. and 3 or 4 burned to the drive.
20. The last film I bought
Been a while... ...Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla I believe. That, or Josie and the Pussycats. Laugh if you will, that film is hilarious and ooohhhh that Rachel Leigh Cook!
21. Last film I watched at home -
Shaolin Soccer. If one third of a film counts, then it is Dagon.
22. Six films I watch a lot or mean a lot to me
Blade Runner. Number One. I have loved this film since I first saw it and it keeps getting more and more relevant.
Lost In Translation. I still haven't identified why I feel so connected to it. I cannot breathe without this film.
Hudsucker Proxy, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Dr. Strangelove. Wickedly funny work.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I love mythic Kung-Fu.
Classic Zombie or Monster films. Give up the artsy shit once in a while. Turn off and detune a little.
Maltese Falcon. My favourite of the films from yesteryear, it stands for a whole group of films that I liked.
- Sorry, Audrey. I do love you, if the list were longer Breakfast at Tiffanys would be a given.
23. Tag 5 people and have them answer these questions on their blog
Yeh well, I may occasionally write one of these out, but I just Don't forward this stuff. Copy / Paste, my friends, if you are so inclined.
a trinity of sorts
This will be edited for more details by the 22 of June
The way junkies crave that sweet brown sugar and build a nest in it; that is how I am coming to love the Raveonettes. One cannot be this into a band without seeing some fairly obvious connections. Here goes...
Listen to Chain Gang of Love. Consider the structure, the sound and the words in their style. There is such an intensely resonant evocation of Jesus and Mary Chain there that birds would fly north early to hear it. Raw coal would hasten its hardening just to shine back at this album. Yet, there is something extra to the sound that prevents it from being a mere rip-off of JMC. There is an edge of southern chic, reminiscent of Tarantino, that also shows up much stronger on the album Pretty In Black. There is more force to the words, by way of example JMC made good metaphors for sex where the Raveonettes say "fuck."
So they are there own band, but the obvious, yea blatant roots are clear and inarguable. I love JMC. I've loved them since I first heard them in ninth grade when I bought an e.p. with Upside Down (one of the songs laying the basis for "Let's Rave On" from Chain Gang). This is a band that was as far reaching in influence as the American notion of democratizing smaller nations. Yup, it spanned the freakin' world!
Without ranting too far about JMC's music, I will quickly touch on Their influences. Yes, they covered old blues material and that was the lyrical side. The actual music in many instances carried a clear tip of the hat to the elder gods of cool, the Velvet Underground. Now if you don't recognize the V.U. as one of the true all time great and influential bands of rock'n'roll, that's your business. I suppose to an extent it's a matter of personal taste, but give the devil his due...
So thinking of this connection, I pay closer attention. I can't help but feel that the song Dirty Eyes (Sex Don't Sell) from Chain Gang, has a powerful feeling of V.U. directly. It reminds me (personally) of Stephanie Says from the Velvets. Okay, I could be wrong, but there are a few places that Chain Gang takes me that make me think Warhol got his musician friends to visit Denmark.
A little more digging was in order and - ahhh, there it is! Who appears as a guest on some of the tracks done by the Raveonettes? Maureen Tucker! That's right, children, one of the original Velvets. Yup. I am happy. These little connections make life and music so satisfying. A tie to the past, with a readiness for the future.
If you haven't heard these three bands, I suggest these albums: V.U. and Nico, V.U. Velvet Underground - both by, you guessed it! Velvet Underground. Darklands, Barbed Wire Kisses, Munki and Honey's Dead - all by the Jesus and Mary Chain. Chain Gang of Love and Pretty In Black by the Raveonettes.
The way junkies crave that sweet brown sugar and build a nest in it; that is how I am coming to love the Raveonettes. One cannot be this into a band without seeing some fairly obvious connections. Here goes...
Listen to Chain Gang of Love. Consider the structure, the sound and the words in their style. There is such an intensely resonant evocation of Jesus and Mary Chain there that birds would fly north early to hear it. Raw coal would hasten its hardening just to shine back at this album. Yet, there is something extra to the sound that prevents it from being a mere rip-off of JMC. There is an edge of southern chic, reminiscent of Tarantino, that also shows up much stronger on the album Pretty In Black. There is more force to the words, by way of example JMC made good metaphors for sex where the Raveonettes say "fuck."
So they are there own band, but the obvious, yea blatant roots are clear and inarguable. I love JMC. I've loved them since I first heard them in ninth grade when I bought an e.p. with Upside Down (one of the songs laying the basis for "Let's Rave On" from Chain Gang). This is a band that was as far reaching in influence as the American notion of democratizing smaller nations. Yup, it spanned the freakin' world!
Without ranting too far about JMC's music, I will quickly touch on Their influences. Yes, they covered old blues material and that was the lyrical side. The actual music in many instances carried a clear tip of the hat to the elder gods of cool, the Velvet Underground. Now if you don't recognize the V.U. as one of the true all time great and influential bands of rock'n'roll, that's your business. I suppose to an extent it's a matter of personal taste, but give the devil his due...
So thinking of this connection, I pay closer attention. I can't help but feel that the song Dirty Eyes (Sex Don't Sell) from Chain Gang, has a powerful feeling of V.U. directly. It reminds me (personally) of Stephanie Says from the Velvets. Okay, I could be wrong, but there are a few places that Chain Gang takes me that make me think Warhol got his musician friends to visit Denmark.
A little more digging was in order and - ahhh, there it is! Who appears as a guest on some of the tracks done by the Raveonettes? Maureen Tucker! That's right, children, one of the original Velvets. Yup. I am happy. These little connections make life and music so satisfying. A tie to the past, with a readiness for the future.
If you haven't heard these three bands, I suggest these albums: V.U. and Nico, V.U. Velvet Underground - both by, you guessed it! Velvet Underground. Darklands, Barbed Wire Kisses, Munki and Honey's Dead - all by the Jesus and Mary Chain. Chain Gang of Love and Pretty In Black by the Raveonettes.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Not done with you yet, God
Further discussion suggests that I like the idea of jealous gods. It just makes sense to me. It must be a dramatic thing to be a god, so jealousy fits. Jealous over what, You ask? Well they Are gods, it could be Anything.
"Hey, Odin's shield is nicer than mine..." - Jealous!
"Do you think Aphrodite has nicer tits than I do?" - Jealous!
"Nice Temple, your followers must really love you..." - Jealous!
"Oh I see Dionysus' wine won a gold seal, There's a surprise..." - Jealous!
"It's My golden apple!" - "No, it's My golden Apple!" - "The apple is Mine, bitch!" - Jealous, Jealous, Jealous!
Yeh, it's petty, but it is important for us little folk to have Some way to control the gods. Control?! Yup. It's one of the things gods are most jealous of, followers. To a Real god, a True, born-to-it-deity, it should always be a mystery why anyone would want to worship anyone else. "Oh, sure, Osiris can let you in on some secrets, but that's nothing compared to [insert your favourite god's powers here] is it?"
"Two arms?! Just Two arms?! I, Shiva have Six arms! Wanna Arm wrestle?"
Even the guy on the Fruit Breezers commercial can best an immortal, under these rules: "The god of War? Juuust War? I got Two jobs!" (^_^)
"Hey, Odin's shield is nicer than mine..." - Jealous!
"Do you think Aphrodite has nicer tits than I do?" - Jealous!
"Nice Temple, your followers must really love you..." - Jealous!
"Oh I see Dionysus' wine won a gold seal, There's a surprise..." - Jealous!
"It's My golden apple!" - "No, it's My golden Apple!" - "The apple is Mine, bitch!" - Jealous, Jealous, Jealous!
Yeh, it's petty, but it is important for us little folk to have Some way to control the gods. Control?! Yup. It's one of the things gods are most jealous of, followers. To a Real god, a True, born-to-it-deity, it should always be a mystery why anyone would want to worship anyone else. "Oh, sure, Osiris can let you in on some secrets, but that's nothing compared to [insert your favourite god's powers here] is it?"
"Two arms?! Just Two arms?! I, Shiva have Six arms! Wanna Arm wrestle?"
Even the guy on the Fruit Breezers commercial can best an immortal, under these rules: "The god of War? Juuust War? I got Two jobs!" (^_^)
knowing how to pic 'em
I firmly assert that we are a visual species. Some insist that men are much more visual women - those people usually have agendas, but that doesn't make them wrong in any measure. I am contemplating people and their visuality because I am noticing a deluge of photos appearing on related sites. (If I link to you, you are a related site). Some are very stimulating and enriching. Some are not. I refuse to comment further on which stimulate or not, but there it is.
In the beginning was the word. It remains true for the entire time that I have been publishing to electronic spaces that I never used pictures. I think that part of me believes - or Wants to believe that the words alone should be carrying over whatever I hope to express here. But we are a visual species. I do love to play in Photoshop....
Beyond the aesthetic, there is also the problem that I use an Apple computer, with Os X. This means no Picasa. No simple fast way to add photo/video/audio blogs. It Can be done of course, but it takes a lot more effort.
Maybe Coming Soon: Photos!
In the beginning was the word. It remains true for the entire time that I have been publishing to electronic spaces that I never used pictures. I think that part of me believes - or Wants to believe that the words alone should be carrying over whatever I hope to express here. But we are a visual species. I do love to play in Photoshop....
Beyond the aesthetic, there is also the problem that I use an Apple computer, with Os X. This means no Picasa. No simple fast way to add photo/video/audio blogs. It Can be done of course, but it takes a lot more effort.
Maybe Coming Soon: Photos!
Friday, June 17, 2005
Listen to your SM
It is commonly held that women make better stage managers than men. It is simply a biological fact that they are better suited to the complex, constant, multitasking required to execute a good performance. I am male and a stage manager - I am not conteding this issue in any way or trying to prove men better. I do, however, expect plenty from my cast.
There is to my knowledge only one cast member who reads this and I fancy she would be too professional to dwell on what is said here, when she is at rehearsal. That is the bet I take; here's the rant.
Goddamn it come up with a Good reason to be absent, people! "I forgot" simply isn't good enough. You do get points for elegance, but not nearly as many as you lose for bad answer. "I was hungover" betrays a brutal honesty that I appreciate deeply, however, If you're adult enough to go out and get sauced then you're adult enough to face your responsabilities the next day. Locked your keys in the car? Take A Bus! In the very least, if you are going to lie about why you aren't there, make an effort and entertain me. Then perhaps I shall forgive you.
Learn your lines. There really is no excuse for this one. Just learn 'em. The fact is that with less than a week to go before the production runs, half my cast is still missing lines or using the wrong lines. It's Shakespeare, y'know! What, did you think maybe it would just leap into your heads like a hit song on the radio? Effort, people, Effort. To be honest, this is possibly the biggest problem the play faces right now. I am not too confident it will be overcome.
A quick mention has to be made to the divas and princesses. There are some people who are developing what I like to think of as "Rodney" syndrome. This affliction is characterized by not thinking one needs to follow directions and by getting a tad snotty when directed, then answering with replies like "just be glad I'm here." To the D's and P's with Rodney syndrome may I remind you that it was You who wanted into this production so Suck it Up and do what you're asked Or get the Hell of my stage Loser.
You see I have only been on stage for a short while, but I came on with a simple yet incredibly powerful premise to guide me: "Humility." You see, if I were so good that I didn't need you, I'd be in Hollywood or on Broadway and I wouldn't need you. Yet here I am in Sudbury and the way out is Not assuming I am better than this place, it is Proving it. That is done with hard work and perseverance, so, Humility.
I saved this one Thursday night to finish on Friday evening. It is now Saturday and I have lost the piss and vinegar that was driving this entry.
Suffice it to say at this point that I have brought my whip out from the old Hallowe'en costumes box. I shall practice tonight and woe to the girl who misses her lines tomorrow!
There is to my knowledge only one cast member who reads this and I fancy she would be too professional to dwell on what is said here, when she is at rehearsal. That is the bet I take; here's the rant.
Goddamn it come up with a Good reason to be absent, people! "I forgot" simply isn't good enough. You do get points for elegance, but not nearly as many as you lose for bad answer. "I was hungover" betrays a brutal honesty that I appreciate deeply, however, If you're adult enough to go out and get sauced then you're adult enough to face your responsabilities the next day. Locked your keys in the car? Take A Bus! In the very least, if you are going to lie about why you aren't there, make an effort and entertain me. Then perhaps I shall forgive you.
Learn your lines. There really is no excuse for this one. Just learn 'em. The fact is that with less than a week to go before the production runs, half my cast is still missing lines or using the wrong lines. It's Shakespeare, y'know! What, did you think maybe it would just leap into your heads like a hit song on the radio? Effort, people, Effort. To be honest, this is possibly the biggest problem the play faces right now. I am not too confident it will be overcome.
A quick mention has to be made to the divas and princesses. There are some people who are developing what I like to think of as "Rodney" syndrome. This affliction is characterized by not thinking one needs to follow directions and by getting a tad snotty when directed, then answering with replies like "just be glad I'm here." To the D's and P's with Rodney syndrome may I remind you that it was You who wanted into this production so Suck it Up and do what you're asked Or get the Hell of my stage Loser.
You see I have only been on stage for a short while, but I came on with a simple yet incredibly powerful premise to guide me: "Humility." You see, if I were so good that I didn't need you, I'd be in Hollywood or on Broadway and I wouldn't need you. Yet here I am in Sudbury and the way out is Not assuming I am better than this place, it is Proving it. That is done with hard work and perseverance, so, Humility.
I saved this one Thursday night to finish on Friday evening. It is now Saturday and I have lost the piss and vinegar that was driving this entry.
Suffice it to say at this point that I have brought my whip out from the old Hallowe'en costumes box. I shall practice tonight and woe to the girl who misses her lines tomorrow!
Thursday, June 16, 2005
teh hot and cold
When I was an anklebiter I loved all seasons equally. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. As I grow older I realize that there are some habits associated to the seasons that have come with me through the years. It is possible that these quirks influence me now when thinking of my favourite season.
First and foremost: I used to love the feel of heat from blacktop, on my feet. I have spent entire Summers without wearing shoes. It's not something that I ever thought about until a few days ago. I have been in the park and at the school (rehearsals on the lawn at the chapel), barefoot for a week. I had forgotten how nice it was. Also, being on a severely reduced nicotine intake at the moment, I have been running in the heat a few times. Sure, I lose my breath quicker than when I was young, but it's fine, it feels great all the same. Score one for Summer.
It used to be a great comfort to me in the Spring and the Autumn to have the heat up and sleep with my window wide open. My parents were sure that I just liked to cost them extra money for heating. I am allowed to do this now, to an extent, because I live in an apartment where the rent is inclusive. I have a great landlord, however, so I try not to do this too often as I wouldn't want to incur his wrath. Score one for Spring and Autumn
Connected to this is a joy I discovered when I was taller and could reach high windows. Perhaps it is by coincedence that most places I have lived in my life, have had windows set in with the shower. It is a treat for me to stay in a hot shower with the window wide open and a cool breeze coming in. In winter, of course, one should not open the window All the way. It was not long before I discovered that the process could be inverted in the summer, taking a very cool shower while the hot, dense, humid air envelopes you. It's not As good, but definiely deserves mention. Score one All seasons.
Winter is the season that I have kept the least of my childhood from. I haven't built a snowfort in damn near a decade now. I haven't played hockey in quite a while. I do not own iceskates anymore. Worst of all, I cannot endure the cold like when I was young. On the upside, I find it relatively easy to start the occasional snowball fight, especially given the silly nature of many of my close friends. I have also learned to ski relatively recently, although I don't get to nearly often enough. I look forward to having a good snowball fight on the slopes soon. Score one Winter.
There it is, all seasons tied at two. Sooner or later someone will mention something that prompts round two of the battle of the seasons.
First and foremost: I used to love the feel of heat from blacktop, on my feet. I have spent entire Summers without wearing shoes. It's not something that I ever thought about until a few days ago. I have been in the park and at the school (rehearsals on the lawn at the chapel), barefoot for a week. I had forgotten how nice it was. Also, being on a severely reduced nicotine intake at the moment, I have been running in the heat a few times. Sure, I lose my breath quicker than when I was young, but it's fine, it feels great all the same. Score one for Summer.
It used to be a great comfort to me in the Spring and the Autumn to have the heat up and sleep with my window wide open. My parents were sure that I just liked to cost them extra money for heating. I am allowed to do this now, to an extent, because I live in an apartment where the rent is inclusive. I have a great landlord, however, so I try not to do this too often as I wouldn't want to incur his wrath. Score one for Spring and Autumn
Connected to this is a joy I discovered when I was taller and could reach high windows. Perhaps it is by coincedence that most places I have lived in my life, have had windows set in with the shower. It is a treat for me to stay in a hot shower with the window wide open and a cool breeze coming in. In winter, of course, one should not open the window All the way. It was not long before I discovered that the process could be inverted in the summer, taking a very cool shower while the hot, dense, humid air envelopes you. It's not As good, but definiely deserves mention. Score one All seasons.
Winter is the season that I have kept the least of my childhood from. I haven't built a snowfort in damn near a decade now. I haven't played hockey in quite a while. I do not own iceskates anymore. Worst of all, I cannot endure the cold like when I was young. On the upside, I find it relatively easy to start the occasional snowball fight, especially given the silly nature of many of my close friends. I have also learned to ski relatively recently, although I don't get to nearly often enough. I look forward to having a good snowball fight on the slopes soon. Score one Winter.
There it is, all seasons tied at two. Sooner or later someone will mention something that prompts round two of the battle of the seasons.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Downfall
I saw the film Downfall the other day with some friends. Friends who are in full cognizance of how much I tend to talk through a film, especially in the theatre. Yet they brought me. In fact my roommate, bless her cotton socks, Took me to the movie (which is to say paid my way in). Such a generous soul; may that trait never cirlce back to bite her in the ass.
Much to my surprise, I said very little during the film. I was rather engrossed in fact. It is about the final 11 days in Hitler's bunker as the Red Army closes around Berlin. I cannot account for the accuracy of the film in a historical sense, but I presume they did their research.
Downfall is a pretty good film, if you don't mind subtitles. There are those out there who cannot tolerate subtitles, so consider yourself warned. Otherwise, go see it.
Much to my surprise, I said very little during the film. I was rather engrossed in fact. It is about the final 11 days in Hitler's bunker as the Red Army closes around Berlin. I cannot account for the accuracy of the film in a historical sense, but I presume they did their research.
Downfall is a pretty good film, if you don't mind subtitles. There are those out there who cannot tolerate subtitles, so consider yourself warned. Otherwise, go see it.
Deity
I slew the dark god last night. It was a difficult and gruelling fight and as exhaustion had lain my compatriots and l out across the lawn, I mused on the nature of some gods.
It wasn't deep or metaphysical I have to say, just dwelling on the aesthetics of each god's appearance. By any rights, the dark god was decent enough - Frightening, imperious, appearing with a Lovecraftian sky full of ancient stars as his backdrop. I gave him a 7.5 overall. Oh, did I mention the dragonhead? The dark god was dragonheaded.
So I mentioned to a friend that I slew said god and we began to contemplate gods together. He says he would like to see a god with horns. Now of course dragons have horns, as a rule. It seems to me that my friend, who has a distaste for things reptilian, might not have been interested in a dragonheaded god. What other logical options would there be then?
My first impression was based on Minotaurs. A Gigantic, bull-horned god with muscles that look like VWs moving around each other in a tight parking lot. An Axe seems to be the obvious choice of weapon, but I think a pair of giant long steel bats with spikes would also look right. A rhinoceros theme may also work I suppose, but it the rhino has always taken second place to the bull in the western mind. The rhino-horned god would be a lesser god.
For my own sense of aesthetics, I insist that a horned god must have two horns or more. Two is the minimum. Unless possibly if the god were cyclopean. One eye, one horn, one temple for all. I'm not fond of this god anyways, it gets mention because it's the only viable single horned god. Maybe there could be an aquatic god with one horn, sweeping way back past his head. Maybe, I will get back to you on it.
Other horned gods? Well the lizard based gods are most obvious, being followed closely by the humanoid who just happens to be growing horns for no reason. The latter resembling the devils that Xianity likes to think it was the creator of. Heheh, naive buggers. I see no violation of aesthetics to have an avian god with a horn. If one can have a beak, I reason it is entirely plausible to have a horn or two or three. It is fantasy, after all.
Human based and anmal based gods are standard all the way through history. I like them a lot too (the animal based especially). The only other format that springs to mind is based on things that are completely unnatural and do not follow the patterns of established reality. Sorry to mention him a second time, but Lovecraft inspires some truly fearsome horned gods.
I have a current disposition to dismiss deities that are not fundamentally biologic in nature. This is a temporary thing which comes and goes. Once I am over it I may come back and promote mechanical gods with great horns that do double service as cogs in the automata of their universal workings. Part of the reason I could (currently) accept a god made of stone and not one made of constructed steel is that stone is natural. I think the god must be natural in some respects. and capable of bringing itself together.
In fact, if built by someone or something else, my sense of aesthetics demands that one could only be a demigod. All the PC types who are gonna piss and moan about this can shut up too; If you don't have the power to make yourSelf a god, then you just ain't qualified.
I wonder now, what would my friend's god be like?
Quickly, before I go, and offering only as much detail as my friend, I think I want (at the moment) a god with wings. Aimee Leonard, who is cute, has this to say on the subject: "i would like to see a woman god with luscious blond locks and huge angel wings."
I would really like to hear about your own gods, whoever reads this. It is rare that i solicit reaction but take the plunge this time.
It wasn't deep or metaphysical I have to say, just dwelling on the aesthetics of each god's appearance. By any rights, the dark god was decent enough - Frightening, imperious, appearing with a Lovecraftian sky full of ancient stars as his backdrop. I gave him a 7.5 overall. Oh, did I mention the dragonhead? The dark god was dragonheaded.
So I mentioned to a friend that I slew said god and we began to contemplate gods together. He says he would like to see a god with horns. Now of course dragons have horns, as a rule. It seems to me that my friend, who has a distaste for things reptilian, might not have been interested in a dragonheaded god. What other logical options would there be then?
My first impression was based on Minotaurs. A Gigantic, bull-horned god with muscles that look like VWs moving around each other in a tight parking lot. An Axe seems to be the obvious choice of weapon, but I think a pair of giant long steel bats with spikes would also look right. A rhinoceros theme may also work I suppose, but it the rhino has always taken second place to the bull in the western mind. The rhino-horned god would be a lesser god.
For my own sense of aesthetics, I insist that a horned god must have two horns or more. Two is the minimum. Unless possibly if the god were cyclopean. One eye, one horn, one temple for all. I'm not fond of this god anyways, it gets mention because it's the only viable single horned god. Maybe there could be an aquatic god with one horn, sweeping way back past his head. Maybe, I will get back to you on it.
Other horned gods? Well the lizard based gods are most obvious, being followed closely by the humanoid who just happens to be growing horns for no reason. The latter resembling the devils that Xianity likes to think it was the creator of. Heheh, naive buggers. I see no violation of aesthetics to have an avian god with a horn. If one can have a beak, I reason it is entirely plausible to have a horn or two or three. It is fantasy, after all.
Human based and anmal based gods are standard all the way through history. I like them a lot too (the animal based especially). The only other format that springs to mind is based on things that are completely unnatural and do not follow the patterns of established reality. Sorry to mention him a second time, but Lovecraft inspires some truly fearsome horned gods.
I have a current disposition to dismiss deities that are not fundamentally biologic in nature. This is a temporary thing which comes and goes. Once I am over it I may come back and promote mechanical gods with great horns that do double service as cogs in the automata of their universal workings. Part of the reason I could (currently) accept a god made of stone and not one made of constructed steel is that stone is natural. I think the god must be natural in some respects. and capable of bringing itself together.
In fact, if built by someone or something else, my sense of aesthetics demands that one could only be a demigod. All the PC types who are gonna piss and moan about this can shut up too; If you don't have the power to make yourSelf a god, then you just ain't qualified.
I wonder now, what would my friend's god be like?
Quickly, before I go, and offering only as much detail as my friend, I think I want (at the moment) a god with wings. Aimee Leonard, who is cute, has this to say on the subject: "i would like to see a woman god with luscious blond locks and huge angel wings."
I would really like to hear about your own gods, whoever reads this. It is rare that i solicit reaction but take the plunge this time.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
...Two Biiits
I've always seen shaving to be one of the great parts of being a guy. To whatever ends, I look forward every second day to taking an extremely keen edge to my face; using quick, precise movements to keep my face smooth. It is nice to have the occasional shave in a barbershop, yes, but overall I prefer to guage my own skill with the blade.
Perhaps it is because one is legitimate in taking as much time as they wish to shave. After all, who would fault someone for rushing when they could lop their nose off? I like to spend this extra time thinking. One is free to think as deeply or shallowly as one wants when shaving, but it is always very conscious thought. It is clear thought, focused by surgical steel. Thanks to this clarity ideas seem more poignant, resolutions carry more gravity, commonalities become profound.
Once, I was lucky enough to be shaved by a girl I was going out with. Her father was (alledgedly) a barber. I never met the man himself, but I reckon he was good at his work if his daughter was any way to tell. That was a lovely experience and I would repeat it in a minute. It is a deeply sensual thing to be shaved by someone else. If done well, you will have a very deep sense of trust with that person as well. Experience this if you can, but I digress...
There are those who believe shaving is unneccessary. Many a Uni prof make the mistake of growing their beards out to look all intellectual. Here's a hint: Glasses make a body look intellectual, not beards. The fact is that very few people look good with facial hair. To further the problem, those who do look good with it often need a period of experimentation to figure out Which style actually looks good on them.
Admittedly, I can't grow a proper beard or moustache. If anyone is inclined to accuse me of being jealous, by all means do it now. I have had facial hair cosmetically applied. I can tell you it is not becoming for me. Therefor I shave and revel in doing so.
This may be old fashioned, but I don't use an electric razor. Electrics interrupt the thought process. I have no enmity for electrics of course, indeed some guys should use exclusively an electric because it suits his personality. No, I have a standard safety razor, nothing unique. I once shaved with straight razor. The girl mentioned earlier also used one. I think I would invest in one later on, when I have the time to explore the true zen of shaving.
Now, there is a sink of hot water, steam rising to cloud the mirror of the medecine cabinet, and a keen edge waiting for me. My face is lathered even as I write this...
Perhaps it is because one is legitimate in taking as much time as they wish to shave. After all, who would fault someone for rushing when they could lop their nose off? I like to spend this extra time thinking. One is free to think as deeply or shallowly as one wants when shaving, but it is always very conscious thought. It is clear thought, focused by surgical steel. Thanks to this clarity ideas seem more poignant, resolutions carry more gravity, commonalities become profound.
Once, I was lucky enough to be shaved by a girl I was going out with. Her father was (alledgedly) a barber. I never met the man himself, but I reckon he was good at his work if his daughter was any way to tell. That was a lovely experience and I would repeat it in a minute. It is a deeply sensual thing to be shaved by someone else. If done well, you will have a very deep sense of trust with that person as well. Experience this if you can, but I digress...
There are those who believe shaving is unneccessary. Many a Uni prof make the mistake of growing their beards out to look all intellectual. Here's a hint: Glasses make a body look intellectual, not beards. The fact is that very few people look good with facial hair. To further the problem, those who do look good with it often need a period of experimentation to figure out Which style actually looks good on them.
Admittedly, I can't grow a proper beard or moustache. If anyone is inclined to accuse me of being jealous, by all means do it now. I have had facial hair cosmetically applied. I can tell you it is not becoming for me. Therefor I shave and revel in doing so.
This may be old fashioned, but I don't use an electric razor. Electrics interrupt the thought process. I have no enmity for electrics of course, indeed some guys should use exclusively an electric because it suits his personality. No, I have a standard safety razor, nothing unique. I once shaved with straight razor. The girl mentioned earlier also used one. I think I would invest in one later on, when I have the time to explore the true zen of shaving.
Now, there is a sink of hot water, steam rising to cloud the mirror of the medecine cabinet, and a keen edge waiting for me. My face is lathered even as I write this...
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Purchasing the Privilege of being 'Right'...
Mr. Root, that friend of mine with the nice hounddog, recently wrote about some of the proclivities of the consuming public. It was inspired by his experiences at the art gallery where he works. He mentioned how the old adage "the customer's always right" is stupid and wrong.
I worked in retail for roughly seven years and for what it's worth, here's my two cents on it. Firstly, the customer thinks that every single penny above the cost of production and distribution of a product is pure profit. Perhaps this is why they so often think services should be free. What could account for the difference? - The fact that although not Always right, the customer is Often right.
You see, if you buy my widgets, produced at JCo. for example at a price of $8, you may think the markup from the $2 it took to make and distribute the widget is excessive. Consider that it also costs on average $1 to pay the person who sets the widget up for you. Consider next that the actual group selling it, needs to make a small profit, say $1.
Now, if by some chance it breaks you can come back to me (or my representative at the place of purchase) and simply get a new one, $2. There are other costs, but let's ignore them for a moment and say they don't exist. One can see that in truly bad circumstance the replacement widget would also have to break to prevent me from making my measly $2. This Does happen, occaisionally.
I mention all of this by way of pointing out that the customer, instead of Automatically being right, has Purchased the privilege of being right - even when they have no clue what the realities of the matter might be*. As true as this is (completely), one must keep in mind that the customer must first pay over their money to be right.
Didja get that? At purchase, you have given enough money that I can replace the widget without a loss to me. No loss to me = your privilege of being right.
"Hey this thing sucks! I want another!"**
"Here ya go!"
-no loss.
That said, I offer an important reminder to the consumer. Most widgets can be had most anywhere. It is Your responsability alone to prove that you bought the widget and where said transaction took place. Yours, see? Because it's not so much that retail workers aren't psychic. To a surprising extent they are. They have to be, sometimes. No the real issue is that retail staff are rarely paid more than $10/h. This amount is certainly enough for a company to induce people to show caring and concern for those who have paid, but nowhere near enough to give two shakes of the goat's tail if a consumer can't even produce the receipt that states clearly: Retain Receipt.
Now this probably sounds harsh and mean-spirited, but even to this there is a response. Look, people, these are the laws of the land. Don't pretend you didn't grow up with them. This is the environment you lived in and fostered. That 19 year-old girl at the cash-desk in Sears? You Taught her these things, Raised her to work in this arena. So stop acting so shocked and distressed, because anyone who ever worked retail Knows you're a faker.
Even after buying the privilege of being right, it is important to remember that your 'rights' are still not Absolute. A receipt does not allow you to kill, maim or crucify anyone. Again, the onus is on the consumer to ask a few basic questions about what they are buying and how the retailer is going to cover them.
Finally, to all the truly Great Consumers (there are Many) I would like to say Thanks
"Thanks for being great consumers and not complaining about the rules of a game. You are what makes it all worthwhile."
*this is by far the most common scenario in retail.
**astoundingly common fault in the North American mind. Who knows why?
I worked in retail for roughly seven years and for what it's worth, here's my two cents on it. Firstly, the customer thinks that every single penny above the cost of production and distribution of a product is pure profit. Perhaps this is why they so often think services should be free. What could account for the difference? - The fact that although not Always right, the customer is Often right.
You see, if you buy my widgets, produced at JCo. for example at a price of $8, you may think the markup from the $2 it took to make and distribute the widget is excessive. Consider that it also costs on average $1 to pay the person who sets the widget up for you. Consider next that the actual group selling it, needs to make a small profit, say $1.
Now, if by some chance it breaks you can come back to me (or my representative at the place of purchase) and simply get a new one, $2. There are other costs, but let's ignore them for a moment and say they don't exist. One can see that in truly bad circumstance the replacement widget would also have to break to prevent me from making my measly $2. This Does happen, occaisionally.
I mention all of this by way of pointing out that the customer, instead of Automatically being right, has Purchased the privilege of being right - even when they have no clue what the realities of the matter might be*. As true as this is (completely), one must keep in mind that the customer must first pay over their money to be right.
Didja get that? At purchase, you have given enough money that I can replace the widget without a loss to me. No loss to me = your privilege of being right.
"Hey this thing sucks! I want another!"**
"Here ya go!"
-no loss.
That said, I offer an important reminder to the consumer. Most widgets can be had most anywhere. It is Your responsability alone to prove that you bought the widget and where said transaction took place. Yours, see? Because it's not so much that retail workers aren't psychic. To a surprising extent they are. They have to be, sometimes. No the real issue is that retail staff are rarely paid more than $10/h. This amount is certainly enough for a company to induce people to show caring and concern for those who have paid, but nowhere near enough to give two shakes of the goat's tail if a consumer can't even produce the receipt that states clearly: Retain Receipt.
Now this probably sounds harsh and mean-spirited, but even to this there is a response. Look, people, these are the laws of the land. Don't pretend you didn't grow up with them. This is the environment you lived in and fostered. That 19 year-old girl at the cash-desk in Sears? You Taught her these things, Raised her to work in this arena. So stop acting so shocked and distressed, because anyone who ever worked retail Knows you're a faker.
Even after buying the privilege of being right, it is important to remember that your 'rights' are still not Absolute. A receipt does not allow you to kill, maim or crucify anyone. Again, the onus is on the consumer to ask a few basic questions about what they are buying and how the retailer is going to cover them.
Finally, to all the truly Great Consumers (there are Many) I would like to say Thanks
"Thanks for being great consumers and not complaining about the rules of a game. You are what makes it all worthwhile."
*this is by far the most common scenario in retail.
**astoundingly common fault in the North American mind. Who knows why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
